[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48848-48887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22659]
[[Page 48848]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-6149-7]
RIN 2060-AE55
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission standards for architectural coatings pursuant to section
183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act). This final rule is based on the
Administrator's determination that VOC emissions from the use of
architectural coatings have the potential to cause or contribute to
ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes
negative health and environmental impacts when present in high
concentrations at ground level. The final rule is estimated to reduce
VOC emissions by 103,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per
year [tpy]) by requiring manufacturers and importers to limit the VOC
content of architectural coatings.
DATES: The effective date is September 11, 1998. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the regulation is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 11, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Technical Support Documents. The regulation promulgated
today is supported by two background information documents (BID); one
specific to the architectural coatings rule, and one that addresses
comments on the study and Report to Congress under section 183(e).
These documents are: the BID for the promulgated architectural coating
standards, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings--Background for Promulgated Standards
(Architectural Coatings BID); and the BID containing the
Administrator's response to comments on the section 183(e) study and
Report to Congress, Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and
Report to Congress (183-BID). The Architectural Coatings BID contains a
summary of the changes made to the standards since proposal, a summary
of all the public comments on the standards, and the Administrator's
response to the comments and the 183-BID contains a summary of all the
public comments made on the section 183(e) study and Report to Congress
and the list and schedule for regulation as well as the Administrator's
response to the comments. Both documents may be obtained from the
docket for this rulemaking and are also accessible through the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html; or from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings--Background for Promulgated Standards,'' EPA-
453/R-98-006b, or ``Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and
Report to Congress'' EPA-453/R-98-007.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-18, contains supporting information used in
developing the promulgated standards. Docket No. A-94-65 contains
information considered by the EPA in development of the consumer and
commercial products study and the subsequent list and schedule for
regulation. The dockets are available for public inspection and copying
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The
[[Page 48849]]
dockets are located at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548 or fax (202)
260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Ducey at (919) 541-5408,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 (ducey.ellen@epa.gov). Any correspondence
related to compliance with this rule must be submitted to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office listed in Sec. 59.409 of the rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings.
Architectural coatings are coatings that are recommended for field
application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to
portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. Regulated categories and
entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Manufacturers (which includes
packagers and repackagers) and
importers of architectural
coatings that are manufactured
for sale or distribution in
the United States, including
all United States territories.
State/local/tribal governments......... State Departments of
Transportation that
manufacture their own
coatings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your product is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 59.400 of the final rule. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
Judicial review. This section 183(e) rule for architectural
coatings was proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). This notice
promulgating a rule for architectural coatings constitutes final
administrative action concerning that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1)
of the Act, judicial review of this final rule is available only by
filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an objection to this rule which was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the Act, the requirements established by today's final action may
not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. Purpose of Regulation
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
II. Summary of Standards
A. Applicability
B. Volatile Organic Compound Content Limits
C. Exceedance Fee
D. Tonnage Exemption
E. Labeling
F. Recordkeeping
G. Reporting
[[Page 48850]]
H. Compliance Provisions
III. Summary of Considerations in Developing Standards
A. Basis of the Regulation
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
V. Significant Comments and Changes to Proposed Standards
A. National Rule versus Control Techniques Guidelines
B. Applicability and Regulated Entities
C. General Comments on Determination of Best Available Controls
D. Changes in Proposed Coating Categories
E. Addition of New Coating Categories
F. Category Overlap
G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption
H. Compliance Variance Provisions
I. Exceedance Fee Option
J. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
K. Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Content
L. Compliance Date
M. Cost/Economic Impacts
N. Small Business Issues
O. Cost-Effectiveness
P. Future Study and Future Limits
Q. Administrative Provisions
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045
I. Background
A. Purpose of Regulation
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-
level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures to
ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million
[ppm]), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy
exertion, and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are
engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more
frequently experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. The
acute health effects include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of
experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and
others who regularly engage in outdoor activities and individuals with
preexisting respiratory disease. Available information also suggests
that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects
(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in
baseline lung function).
In accordance with section 183(e) of the Act, the Administrator has
determined that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings
have the potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the NAAQS
for ozone. Under authority of section 183(e), the EPA conducted a study
of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products to determine
their potential to contribute to ozone levels which violate the NAAQS
for ozone. Based on the results of the study, the EPA determined that
the architectural coatings category accounts for about 9 percent of the
emissions from all consumer and commercial products. It is one of the
largest emission sources among the consumer and commercial products
categories and in many States represents one of the largest
identifiable sources of unregulated VOC emissions. Consequently, the
EPA and many States consider the regulation of architectural coatings
to be an important component of the overall approach to reducing those
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The EPA's
determination that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings
have the potential to contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS
and the decision to regulate architectural coatings are discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 32729), in the ``Consumer and
Commercial Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), in the
Federal Register notice announcing the schedule for regulation (60 FR
15264), and in a separate Federal Register document published today
that constitutes final action on the EPA's listing of architectural
coatings for regulation.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1. Section 183(e)
In 1990, Congress enacted section 183(e) of the Act, establishing a
new regulatory program for controlling VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products. Section 183(e) directs the Administrator to list,
and schedule for regulation, categories of consumer and commercial
products after completion of a study and report to Congress concerning
the products and their potential to contribute to levels of ozone which
violate the ozone NAAQS. A separate document in today's Federal
Register contains a description of section 183(e) of the Act and
contains a summary of significant public comments and the EPA responses
regarding the section 183(e) study, the Report to Congress, and the
list and schedule for regulation.
2. Regulatory Negotiation
In 1992, the EPA initiated a regulatory negotiation to address
architectural coatings. The regulatory negotiation process is an
alternative to the traditional approach to rulemaking. The members of
the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation committee represented
the affected industries, consumers, Federal agencies, State and local
air pollution control agencies, environmental groups, and labor
organizations. Regulatory negotiation meetings were held from October
1992 to February 1994. Despite negotiation efforts, the committee could
not reach consensus on some key regulatory issues for developing the
rule, and on September 23, 1994, the regulatory negotiation concluded
without consensus. Therefore, the EPA initiated development of the
architectural coatings rule through conventional rule development
procedures. The EPA utilized data and information obtained from the
regulatory negotiation to complement additional information gathered
during the rule development. Specifically, the EPA took into
consideration information on the volume, VOC content, and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) content of coatings produced in 1990 in the VOC
Emissions Inventory Survey conducted by industry.
3. Relationship to State and Local Regulation of Architectural Coatings
Emissions from the use of architectural coatings are not currently
regulated at the Federal level. Although a few States have had
architectural coatings regulations in place for a number of years, many
State and local areas are still seeking to obtain VOC reductions from
this source category either from a national rule or from additional
regulation at the State or local level.
Differing requirements of State and local architectural coating
regulations have created administrative, technical,
[[Page 48851]]
and marketing problems for both large and small companies that market
and distribute products in multiple States. Both large and small
manufacturers have noted the additional burden associated with
differences in State and local requirements. These industry
representatives have noted that a Federal rule would provide some
degree of consistency, predictability, and administrative ease for the
industry.
States with ozone pollution problems are supportive of the EPA
rulemakings that will assist them in their efforts toward achievement
of the ozone standard. The National Governors' Association and
Environmental Council of States (a group composed of environmental
commissioners from each State), the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution
Control program Administrators, and the 37-State Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG) all have urged the EPA to finalize national
rules for architectural coatings. State representatives have long
recommended that the EPA develop a national rule for this product
category. In part, this is because a national rule will help reduce
compliance problems associated with transportation of noncompliant
coatings into nonattainment areas from neighboring areas and
neighboring States.
Given the EPA's commitment to develop a national VOC rule for
architectural coatings, 14 States currently are depending on
anticipated reductions from the rule to meet a Clean Air Act
requirement for State Implementation Plans (SIP) to achieve a 15-
percent reduction in overall VOC emissions, which is required for areas
with ozone pollution classed as moderate nonattainment or worse. Other
States can use these emission reductions to meet Clean Air Act
requirements for additional rate-of-progress plans required for 1999
and beyond. If the EPA failed to promulgate a Federal rule for
architectural coatings, these States would need to make up the
shortfall in emission reductions needed to achieve attainment through
other regulations, which would likely target substantially more
expensive reductions from local industries and businesses.
II. Summary of Standards
A. Applicability
The architectural coatings rule applies to manufacturers and
importers of architectural coatings that are manufactured after
September 13, 1999 for sale or distribution in the United States,
including the District of Columbia and all United States territories.
For architectural coatings registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.,)
(FIFRA), the applicable date is March 10, 2000.
The regulated entity under this rule is the manufacturer or
importer of a regulated architectural coating. The regulated entities
include any manufacturers or importers that produce, package, or
repackage architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United
States, including the District of Columbia and all United States
territories. A person that repackages architectural coatings as part of
a paint exchange and does not produce, package, or repackage any other
architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States,
is not included in the definition of manufacturer. Similarly, a person
that repackages an architectural coating by transferring it from one
container to another is not included in the definitions of importer and
manufacturer, provided the VOC content of the coating is not altered
and the coating is not sold or distributed to another party.
An architectural coating is defined in the rule as: ``a coating
recommended for field application to stationary structures and their
appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.'' The
definition of architectural coating excludes: ``adhesives and coatings
recommended by the manufacturer or importer solely for shop
applications or solely for application to non-stationary structures,
such as airplanes, ships, boats, and railcars.''
Architectural coatings that are subject to the rule are divided
into a number of coating categories, such as ``exterior flats'' or
``industrial maintenance coatings.'' These coating categories are
defined in the rule for purposes of specifying the applicable emission
limits. In determining if a coating is subject to this rule, a coating
must first meet the general definition of an architectural coating.
The standards do not apply to the following:
(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively for sale or distribution
outside the United States;
(2) Coatings manufactured prior to September 13, 1999;
(3) Coatings sold in nonrefillable aerosol containers;
(4) Coatings that are collected and redistributed at paint
exchanges in accordance with this rule; and
(5) coatings sold in containers with a volume of 1 liter or less.
B. Volatile Organic Compound Content Limits
Manufacturers and importers must limit the VOC content of subject
coatings to the VOC content levels presented in table 1 of this
subpart, unless they utilize the exceedance fee or tonnage exemption
provisions described below. These limits apply to the VOC content that
would result after thinning a coating according to the manufacturer's
maximum thinning recommendations. Each subject coating must be
classified by the manufacturer or importer as belonging to at least one
of the categories listed in table 1. Each category is defined in the
rule's definitions section. If none of the specific category
definitions applies to a coating, then the coating is included in
either the flat or nonflat category, depending on its gloss level.
Table 1 of Subpart D.--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits
for Architectural Coatings
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per
liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added
to tint bases.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grams per Pounds per
Coating category liter gallona
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna coatings........................ 530 4.4
Anti-fouling coatings................... 450 3.8
Anti-graffiti coatings.................. 600 5.0
Bituminous coatings and mastics......... 500 4.2
Bond breakers........................... 600 5.0
Calcimine recoater...................... 475 4.0
Chalkboard resurfacers.................. 450 3.8
Concrete curing compounds............... 350 2.9
Concrete curing and sealing compounds... 700 5.8
[[Page 48852]]
Concrete protective coatings............ 400 3.3
Concrete surface retarders.............. 780 6.5
Conversion varnish...................... 725 6.0
Dry fog coatings........................ 400 3.3
Extreme high durability coatings........ 800 6.7
Faux finishing/glazing.................. 700 5.8
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:
Clear............................... 850 7.1
Opaque.............................. 450 3.8
Flat coatings:
Exterior............................ 250 2.1
Interior............................ 250 2.1
Floor coatings.......................... 400 3.3
Flow coatings........................... 650 5.4
Form release compounds.................. 450 3.8
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints)..... 500 4.2
Heat reactive coatings.................. 420 3.5
High temperature coatings............... 650 5.4
Impacted immersion coatings............. 780 6.5
Industrial maintenance coatings......... 450 3.8
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding
sealers)............................... 680 5.7
Magnesite cement coatings............... 600 5.0
Mastic texture coatings................. 300 2.5
Metallic pigmented coatings............. 500 4.2
Multi-colored coatings.................. 580 4.8
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and
surface protectants.................... 870 7.3
Nonflat coatings:
Exterior............................ 380 3.2
Interior............................ 380 3.2
Nuclear coatings........................ 450 3.8
Pretreatment wash primers............... 780 6.5
Primers and undercoaters................ 350 2.9
Quick-dry coatings:
Enamels............................. 450 3.8
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters.. 450 3.8
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic
coatings............................... 650 5.4
Roof coatings........................... 250 2.1
Rust preventative coatings.............. 400 3.3
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer
sanding sealers)....................... 550 4.6
Sealers (including interior clear wood
sealers)............................... 400 3.3
Shellacs:
Clear............................... 730 6.1
Opaque.............................. 550 4.6
Stains:
Clear and semitransparent........... 550 4.6
Opaque.............................. 350 2.9
Low solids.......................... b120 b1.0
Stain controllers....................... 720 6.0
Swimming pool coatings.................. 600 5.0
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and
mastics................................ 550 4.6
Traffic marking coatings................ 150 1.3
Varnishes............................... 450 3.8
Waterproofing sealers and treatments.... 600 5.0
Wood preservatives:
Below ground wood preservatives..... 550 4.6
Clear and semitransparent........... 550 4.6
Opaque.............................. 350 2.9
Low solids.......................... b120 b1.0
Zone marking coatings................... 450 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a English units are provided for information only. Enforcement of the
rule will be based on the metric units.
b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of
coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum
thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
If a coating is marketed in more than one of the coating categories
listed in table 1 of this subpart, the manufacturer or importer must
comply with the lowest applicable VOC content limit, unless an
exception is specified in
[[Page 48853]]
Sec. 59.402(c) of the rule. These exceptions were developed to clarify
which VOC content limit applies in situations where inherent overlap
exists between category definitions. For example, varnishes used on
wood floors were not intended to be subject to the more stringent
emission limit for floor coatings. Therefore, an exception paragraph is
included in the rule stating that varnishes recommended for use on
floors are subject to the VOC content limit for varnishes, and not the
limit for floor coatings.
Manufacturers and importers of recycled coatings are given the
compliance option of calculating an adjusted-VOC content. Manufacturers
and importers of recycled architectural coatings are defined as those
that collect, reprocess, and market coatings that contain a percentage
of post-consumer coating. Such use is environmentally beneficial
because it reduces the amount of waste from architectural coatings that
would otherwise result from evaporation of VOC from unused coatings or
of coatings sent to landfills or elsewhere. The adjusted-VOC content
provides regulated entities some credit for the amount of post-consumer
material contained in the coating. The EPA is providing this credit to
encourage recycling of unused coatings. The adjusted-VOC content is
determined by multiplying the percentage of post-consumer content of
the coating by the VOC content of the recycled coating, which is then
subtracted from the VOC content of the end product. An explicit
equation for the calculation is given in the rule.
C. Exceedance Fee
The rule includes an exceedance fee compliance option. This is an
economic incentive approach whereby manufacturers and importers may
choose to comply with the rule by paying a fee in lieu of meeting the
VOC content limits for their coating products. The fee is $0.0028 per
gram ($2,500 per ton) of excess VOC. The fee is calculated using the
amount of VOC in excess of the applicable VOC content limit. The
exceedance fee is paid annually to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
and is due no later than March 1 in the year following the calendar
year in which the coating is manufactured or imported.
D. Tonnage Exemption
The final rule also includes a tonnage exemption that allows each
manufacturer and importer to sell or distribute limited quantities of
architectural coatings that do not comply with the VOC content limits
and for which no exceedance fee is paid. The tonnage exemption can be
used for multiple products, but the total mass of VOC contained in a
single manufacturer's or importer's exempt coatings may not exceed the
amounts in table 2. The total mass of VOC is calculated based on the
volume of coatings manufactured or imported and the total VOC content
of each of the coatings for which an exemption is claimed. To
reiterate, the calculation is based on the total mass of VOC contained
in all exempt coatings, not the difference between the VOC content of
each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the rule.
Table 2.--Tonnage Exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total mass of VOC contained in all
exempt coatings combined may not exceed During the time period of
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 megagrams (25 tons) VOC................ September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000.
18 megagrams (20 tons) VOC................ Calendar year 2001
9 megagrams (10 tons) VOC................. Calendar year 2002 and each
year thereafter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Labeling
For coatings complying with the VOC content limits in table 1 of
this subpart, manufacturers and importers must provide the following
information on the label or lid of each coating: (1) the date the
coating was manufactured, or a code indicating this date (this
information may alternatively be provided on the bottom of the can);
(2) a statement of the manufacturer's recommendation regarding thinning
of the coating (does not apply to thinning with water); and (3) either
the VOC content of the coating in the container, or the VOC content
limit from table 1 of the rule with which the coating must comply and
with which it does comply. (Any coating for which the exceedance fee or
tonnage exemption provision is being used must be labeled with its VOC
content because it would not be in compliance with the VOC content
limits in table 1 of this subpart.)
Industrial maintenance coatings must be labeled with one of several
prescribed phrases indicating that the coating is not intended for
general consumer use. For recycled coatings, manufacturers and
importers must indicate the post-consumer coating content on the
container label or lid.
F. Recordkeeping
There are no recordkeeping requirements for coatings complying with
the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart. However, the rule
does include recordkeeping requirements for compliance with the
recycled coating, exceedance fee, and tonnage exemption provisions.
For recycled coatings, the manufacturer or importer must keep
records of the volume of coatings received for recycling, the volume of
coatings received that is unusable, the volume of virgin coatings used
with recycled coatings, and the volume of final recycled coatings
manufactured or imported. In addition, manufacturers and importers of
recycled coatings must keep records of the calculation of adjusted-VOC
contents.
For compliance with the exceedance fee provisions, manufacturers
and importers must keep records on an annual basis for each coating of
the VOC content, the VOC content in excess of the applicable limit, and
the volume manufactured or imported. Manufacturers and importers must
also keep records of the calculation of fees, the annual fee for each
coating, and the total annual fee.
For the tonnage exemption, manufacturers and importers must keep
records of the products claimed under the exemption, the VOC content
and actual sales or distribution for each exempt product, and the total
mass of VOC contained in all products claimed under the exemption.
All required records must be retained for a period of 3 years in a
form suitable for inspection.
Although the retention of test data is not required by this rule,
the EPA encourages facilities to keep any information resulting from
either Method 24 or any other acceptable method to determine
compliance. This information will help the EPA make a preliminary
assessment of compliance for the coatings subject to this rule. In the
absence of demonstrable indications of compliance, the EPA may require
Method 24 testing by the facility in accordance with Sec. 59.406(b).
G. Reporting
All manufacturers and importers of subject coatings must file an
initial notification report listing the coating categories from table 1
of this subpart that they manufacture or import and the locations of
facilities that manufacture architectural coatings in the United
States. The initial notification report must be submitted no later than
September 13, 1999 or 180 days after the date that the manufacturer or
importer first manufactures or imports a subject coating, whichever is
later.
[[Page 48854]]
In addition, if a manufacturer or importer uses a date coding
system, an explanation of the coding system must be submitted with the
initial report. Explanations of new codes must be filed within 30 days
after their first use.
There are no reporting requirements beyond the initial notification
and date code explanation for manufacturers and importers who meet the
VOC content limits in table 1. There are additional reporting
requirements for manufacturers and importers who choose to take
advantage of optional provisions, including: (1) the calculation of an
adjusted-VOC content for recycled coatings (based on post-consumer
coating content); (2) the payment of the exceedance fee; and (3) the
tonnage exemption. An annual report is required for each of these
provisions.
H. Compliance Provisions
The rule specifies the procedure to determine the VOC content of
coatings subject to the rule. Although the EPA has chosen Method 24 as
the reference method for determining compliance with the VOC content
requirements of this rule, it is not the exclusive method for
determining compliance. The manufacturer or importer may also use a
different analytical method than Method 24 (if it is approved by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis), formulation data, or any other
reasonable means to determine the VOC content of coatings. However, the
EPA may require a Method 24 analysis to be conducted, and if there are
any inconsistencies between the results of a Method 24 test and any
other means for determining VOC content, the Method 24 test results
will govern. The EPA can use other evidence as well to establish
whether or not a manufacturer or importer is in compliance with the
provisions of this rule.
III. Summary of Considerations in Developing Standards
A. Basis of the Regulation
Section 183(e) of the Act directs the EPA to regulate products
using best available controls (BAC), and defines BAC as:
the degree of emissions reduction the Administrator determines, on
the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health,
environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for
use, consumption, storage, or disposal.
The statute thus empowers the EPA to examine a variety of
considerations to use in determining the best means of obtaining VOC
emission reductions from a given consumer or commercial product
category. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR
32737, June 25, 1996), the primary factors the EPA considered in
determining BAC for architectural coatings were technological and
economic feasibility, and environmental impacts.
Non-air environmental impacts (solid waste and water) and energy
impacts are expected to be minimal and, therefore, do not vary
significantly among various VOC control levels. With regard to health
impacts, the EPA has concluded that reductions in VOC emissions and
concomitant reductions in ozone will reduce health impacts of exposure
to ozone.
For architectural coatings, the EPA determined that BAC is the
degree of emission reduction achievable through a system of regulation
that encourages product reformulation to meet the VOC content limits in
table 1 of this subpart, provides an economic incentive (the exceedance
fee option) to lower VOC content of coatings, and allows for limited
exemption of coatings (the VOC tonnage exemption). The EPA concluded
that for this product category, pollution prevention is the most
effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions. In working to
comply with State VOC rules over the past several years, the
architectural coatings industry has established product reformulation
as the most technologically and economically feasible strategy for
reducing VOC emissions. Reformulation can consist of minor adjustments
in coating VOC contents or larger adjustments involving a change in
resin technology. The EPA considered many factors in evaluating the
economic and technological feasibility of different VOC content levels
and different degrees of reformulation. These factors included existing
State and local VOC emission standards, coating VOC content and sales
information, analysis of coating technologies, performance
considerations, cost considerations, market impacts, and stakeholder
input. In addition, the EPA considered the relative contribution of
different coating types to overall VOC emissions from architectural
coatings.
At proposal, the EPA requested comment on alternatives to the
proposed VOC content limits that would provide flexibility, if
additional time were needed or it was not cost-effective to develop a
low-VOC formulation. Based on comments received, the EPA included in
the final rule an exceedance fee (discussed in sections II.C and V.I)
and an exemption for a certain tonnage of VOC content (discussed in
sections II.D and V.G).
The final VOC content limits in conjunction with the exceedance fee
and tonnage exemption reflect the EPA's determination of BAC and are
based primarily on the 1990 VOC Emissions Inventory Survey, analysis of
existing State rules for architectural coatings, data obtained from
participants in the regulatory negotiation, and information submitted
by coating manufacturers and other interested parties during the course
of the rule development and public comment period.
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
The EPA proposed the architectural coatings rule and published the
preamble in the Federal Register on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). The
EPA placed the proposed regulatory text, BID, and Economic Impact
Analysis (EIA) in a docket open to the public at that time and made
them available to interested parties. The EPA solicited comments at the
time of the proposal. To provide easier access by the public, the EPA
subsequently published the proposed regulatory text in the Federal
Register on September 3, 1996 (61 FR 46410) and extended the comment
period from August 30 to September 30, 1996. The EPA again extended the
comment period to November 4, 1996 (notice published at 61 FR 52735,
October 8, 1996).
To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed architectural
coating rule, the EPA held a public hearing in Durham, North Carolina
on July 30, 1996. Nineteen speakers presented oral testimony at this
hearing. The EPA held another public meeting to discuss issues related
to the impact of the proposed rule on small manufacturers in Rosemont,
Illinois, on August 13, 1996. There were 77 persons who participated in
the meeting, and 18 speakers presented oral testimony.
The EPA received over 200 comment letters on the proposed rule.
Commenters included coating manufacturers and importers, State
regulatory agencies, trade associations, environmental groups, the
United States military, and others. The EPA has carefully considered
the comments and has made changes to the proposed rule where determined
by the Administrator to be appropriate. The most significant comments
and responses are discussed in section V of this preamble. A detailed
[[Page 48855]]
discussion of all significant comments and responses on the rule itself
can be found in the architectural coatings BID, which is referenced in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
A separate document in today's Federal Register contains a summary
of public comments and the EPA's responses regarding the section 183(e)
study, the Report to Congress, the list of consumer and commercial
product categories selected for regulation, and the schedule for
regulation.
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
1. VOC Reductions
The standards will reduce nationwide emissions of VOC from
architectural coating products by an estimated 103,000 Mg/yr (113,500
tpy). These reductions are compared to the 1990 baseline emissions
estimate of 510,000 Mg/yr (561,000 tpy). This reduction equates to a
20-percent reduction, compared to the emissions that would have
resulted in the absence of these standards.
2. Health Effects
Because VOC are precursors to ozone formation, the VOC reductions
from architectural coatings will contribute to a decrease in adverse
health effects that result from exposure to ground-level ozone. These
health effects result from short-term or prolonged exposure to ground-
level ozone and include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Available information also
suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health
effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline
in baseline lung function).
3. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts
No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts
are anticipated from compliance with these standards. Generally,
coating reformulation, a pollution prevention technique, will be used
to comply with these standards. In cases where conversion from
solventborne to waterborne coatings is the method used to achieve
compliance, an increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste from
the manufacture of waterborne coatings is discharged by manufacturers
to publicly owned treatment works. The provisions for recycling of
coatings in the rule may potentially reduce the amount of coating
discarded as solid waste.
The regulations do not impact existing product inventories.
Products manufactured before the compliance deadline are not affected.
Excluding existing product inventories from the regulations will
eliminate any incremental solid waste increase due to discarded, unsold
products. The new products are not expected to require any more
packaging than existing products, and thus the volume of discarded
packaging should not increase.
B. Energy Impacts
The EPA anticipates that there will be no increase in national
annual energy usage as a result of this rule. The standards do not
require the use of air pollution control devices, which can affect
energy use.
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
Sixty-four percent of the products included in the 1990 industry
survey meet the VOC content limits in this rule and, therefore, there
will be no costs to reformulate these products. The manufacturer of an
architectural coating that does not meet the VOC content limits in
table 1 of this subpart, will be required to reformulate the product if
it will continue to be marketed, unless the manufacturer chooses to use
an alternative compliance mechanism such as the exceedance fee or
tonnage exemption provisions. The EPA presumes that manufacturers will
choose the option that is most advantageous to them, but each option
imposes costs, some of which will be passed on to consumers in the form
of moderately higher prices and some of which will be borne directly by
the manufacturers.
The cost for reformulating noncompliant products depends on the
level of effort required to develop a new product (e.g., research and
development and market testing expenditures) and how these expenditures
are incurred over time. Based on comments received at proposal and the
original data presented at proposal, the EPA revised its estimate of
the cost to reformulate a product from a lump-sum initial investment of
$250,000 to $87,000 (in 1991 dollars), which is annualized to an upper
bound value of $14,570 per reformulation (see Section V. M of this
preamble for further discussion). Although variations are likely to
exist, for purposes of this analysis, this reformulation cost estimate
is assumed to be the same for all product types and variations, so the
value is independent of VOC content and the annual sales volume of the
product. Other costs and cost savings associated with reformulation are
likely, but could not be quantified. These costs are discussed
qualitatively in the EIA. Reformulation costs are direct costs imposed
on manufacturers of noncompliant products. Based on public comments,
the EPA found that in the traffic markings category, the user of the
coating may have to modify technology or purchase new equipment to
apply the coating. This additional cost is not considered a direct
impact because it occurs as a result of restrictions on coating
manufacturers, but the cost is borne by the user of the coating rather
than the manufacturer. Nevertheless, the EPA examined the indirect
impacts of this category because the changed equipment costs are so
directly related to the change of formulation. The EPA estimates that
changes in traffic marking equipment may cost up to $3 million annually
(in 1991 dollars). For other regulated categories, it is not
anticipated that new equipment or other indirect costs will be incurred
to apply compliant coatings.
Based on the information above, implementation of this regulation
is estimated to result in national annualized costs of approximately
$25.6 million (in 1991 dollars). (For the benefit of readers, this
value is equivalent to approximately $29 million in 1996 dollars.) This
estimate includes $0.6 million in costs for manufacturers and importers
that the EPA anticipates will take advantage of the alternative
exceedance fee compliance provision. The rule does not impose
monitoring requirements (and associated costs), but ensures compliance
through recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirements. The annual
cost for these requirements is expected to be approximately $2.5
million. Therefore, the EPA estimates the total cost associated with
the rule to be $28 million per year (1991 dollars) (or $32 million in
1996 dollars). In comparison, the 1991 value of shipments for this
industry was $6.3 billion. Thus, the estimated costs amount to roughly
0.4 percent of the baseline revenues for this industry.
The estimated cost-effectiveness of the rule is $270 per megagram
($250 per ton) of VOC emission reduction. This cost per megagram of VOC
emission reduction makes the architectural coatings rule an
economically efficient means of obtaining VOC emission reductions, when
compared to the cost per megagram of reduction potentially available
through other control measures. As a result of the costs discussed
above, the EPA anticipates
[[Page 48856]]
that the average change in market prices and output across all market
segments are minimal, with an average estimated impact of less than
one-tenth of 1 percent of baseline values.
The EPA believes the estimates of total cost and associated
economic impacts are conservatively high. Since the best available data
on VOC content of architectural coatings is from 1990, and the final
rule has VOC content requirements similar to State rules which have
been enforced since 1990, the EPA believes the estimated number of
reformulations and/or their reformulation cost that result from this
action may be overstated in that the compliant products developed by
manufacturers to comply with various State rules can be used to meet
the requirements of the Federal rule. The EIA also takes a conservative
approach to several assumptions to produce an upper bound estimate of
social cost.
V. Significant Comments and Changes to Proposed Standards
A complete summary of public comments on the architectural coatings
rule and the EPA's responses are presented in the Architectural
Coatings BID, as referenced in the ``ADDRESSES'' section of this
preamble. The EPA received many comments addressing a wide variety of
issues in the proposed rule for architectural coatings. After careful
consideration of these comments, the EPA has made a number of changes
to the proposed rule. The major changes made to the rule since proposal
include: (1) clarification of the definitions of ``architectural
coating,'' ``coating,'' ``importer,'' ``manufacturer,'' and ``paint
exchange,'; (2) addition of definitions for ``imported'' and
``manufactured,'; (3) clarification of which standards apply to
overlapping coating categories; (4) changes to the definitions and VOC
content limits for certain categories; (5) addition of certain new
coating categories; (6) addition of the exceedance fee provision; (7)
deletion of the variance provisions; (8) addition of an exemption for
prescribed quantities of coatings (tonnage exemption); (9) addition of
administrative provisions; and (10) reorganization and reformatting of
the rule for clarity.
The following sections of the preamble discuss the most significant
issues raised by commenters and the EPA's responses to them.
A. National Rule Versus Control Techniques Guidelines
The EPA requested comment on whether and how a CTG approach would
be as effective as a national rule in reducing VOC emissions from
architectural coatings in ozone nonattainment areas. Section 183(e) of
the Act authorizes the Administrator to issue a CTG in lieu of a
national rule if the CTG will be substantially as effective in reducing
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
Over 20 commenters stated that they support a national
architectural coatings rule. Commenters who supported a national rule
with VOC content limits stated that complying with a single uniform
regulation would be less burdensome, and more cost-effective than
complying with many different standards in different States. Commenters
also stated that small manufacturers and importers are less likely to
have the resources necessary to produce different lines of products to
meet varying standards for different areas of the country. Furthermore,
many commenters pointed out that coatings are widely distributed and
easily transported from attainment areas to nonattainment areas.
Therefore, regulating products only in nonattainment areas would be a
less effective strategy, and a more difficult one to enforce.
Seven commenters stated that they support a CTG in lieu of a
national rule. Commenters favoring a CTG generally contended that
section 183(e) targets VOC emissions in nonattainment areas, and that a
national rule is not warranted. The commenters stated that a CTG would
be more appropriate since issuance of a CTG requires States to
implement standards only in nonattainment areas. According to these
commenters, allowing coatings manufactured or imported in attainment
areas to remain unregulated would provide market niches for small
manufacturers and importers. Some commenters also argued that consumers
in attainment areas should not have to forego the alleged benefits of
higher VOC content coatings.
Several commenters noted that, even with implementation of a
national rule, States can promulgate more stringent standards.
Therefore, even a national rule does not ensure uniform nationwide VOC
standards. Some commenters urged cooperation and discussion between the
EPA and States that consider implementing standards more stringent than
the national rule.
The EPA has concluded that a national rule is the more effective
approach for reducing emissions from architectural coatings for the
following reasons. First, the EPA believes that a national rule is an
appropriate means to reduce emissions from products that are, by their
nature, easily transported across area boundaries, and many are widely
distributed and are used by widely varied types of end-users. For many
such products, the end-user may use them in different locations from
day-to-day. Because the products themselves are easily transportable, a
national rule would preempt opportunities for end-users to purchase
such consumer and commercial products in attainment areas and then use
them in nonattainment areas, thereby circumventing the regulations and
undermining the decrease in VOC emissions in nonattainment areas. The
EPA, therefore, believes that a national rule with applicability to
products, regardless of where they are marketed, is a reasonable means
to ensure that the regulations result in the requisite degree of VOC
emission reduction.
Second, the EPA believes that national rules with nationwide
applicability may help to mitigate the impact of ozone and ozone
precursor transport across some area boundaries. Recent modeling
performed by the OTAG and others suggests that in some circumstances
VOC emitted outside nonattainment area boundaries can contribute to
ozone pollution in nonattainment areas, for example, by traveling into
neighboring nonattainment areas. The EPA has recognized the potential
for VOC transport in the December 29, 1997, ``Guidance for Implementing
the 1-hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' concerning
credit for VOC emission reductions towards rate-of-progress
requirements. The guidance indicates that the EPA may give credit for
VOC reductions within 100 kilometers of nonattainment areas. In
addition, the June 1997 recommendations made by OTAG supported the
EPA's use of VOC regulations that apply to both nonattainment and
attainment areas to implement section 183(e) of the Act for certain
products. The particular product categories OTAG cited for national VOC
regulations are automobile refinish coatings, consumer products, and
architectural coatings. The EPA believes that regulation of products in
at least some attainment areas is necessary to mitigate VOC emissions
that have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment in
accordance with section 183(e) of the Act.
Based on these considerations, and considerations of the
effectiveness and enforceability of emission controls, the EPA has
determined that a CTG for architectural coatings would not be
substantially as effective as a national rule in reducing VOC emissions
in ozone nonattainment areas.
[[Page 48857]]
A major trade association representing many architectural coating
manufacturers provided comments supporting a national rule that applies
to all areas as the most efficient regulatory mechanism from the
perspective of marketing and distribution of products. In addition,
comments from a number of small and large manufacturers favored a
national rule to encourage uniformity in regulation from State to
State, and thereby minimize significant costs and burdens associated
with understanding and meeting differing State and local requirements.
The EPA also received some comments suggesting that a national rule
apply only in nonattainment areas. The EPA believes that rules
applicable only in nonattainment areas would be unnecessarily complex
and burdensome for many regulated entities to comply with and for the
EPA to administer. The potentially regulated entities under section
183(e) are the manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer and commercial products. For these three product
categories, EPA believes that regulations that would differentiate
between products destined for attainment and nonattainment areas should
adequately insure that only compliant products go to nonattainment
areas. For such a rule to be effective, EPA believes that this would
necessitate requiring regulated entities to track their products and
control their distribution, sale, and ultimate destination for use to
insure that only compliant products go to nonattainment areas. The EPA
notes that for architectural coatings, regulated entities do not
currently track or control distribution of their products once they
sell them to retail distributors. Although the EPA recognizes that some
product lines in some product categories may only be distributed
regionally in areas that are already in attainment, the large majority
of the product lines will be distributed nationally. Regulations
targeted only at nonattainment areas could, thus, impose significant
additional burdens upon regulated entities to achieve the goals of
section 183(e).
By comparison, existing State regulations in some instances apply
to a broader range of entities, including retail distributors and end-
users. Given the limitations of section 183(e) as to regulated
entities, the EPA believes that regulations applicable to both
attainment areas and nonattainment areas is a reasonable means to
ensure use of complying products where necessary, while avoiding
potentially burdensome impacts and less reliable mechanisms to achieve
the goals of section 183(e).
The EPA expects a national VOC rule for architectural coatings to
encourage uniformity in requirements across the country. Many States
may choose to rely on the EPA rule rather than adopt their own
requirements. The EPA's consideration of this factor, however, is not
meant to imply that it would be inappropriate for States to develop
more stringent levels of controls where necessary to attain the ozone
standard. Some States, particularly those with long-standing and
significant nonattainment problems, may need additional emission
reductions to achieve attainment of the NAAQS and may need to adopt or
maintain more stringent requirements for consumer products like
architectural coatings in order to help reach attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. The final rule has been amended to include provisions in
Sec. 59.410, State authority, to clarify that States are not restricted
by this rule in establishing and enforcing their own additional
standards and limits.
The consultation provisions of section 183(e)(9) of the Act are
designed to promote uniformity in such cases where States or local
areas need to adopt requirements other than those promulgated by the
EPA. Section 183(e)(9) requires the EPA to provide relevant information
and studies requested by any State. The EPA expects such consultation
and cooperation to result in States developing options for regulation
that will be compatible with other States and with the national
standards. The EPA considers a national VOC rule an important element
in promoting consistency among architectural coating standards.
B. Applicability and Regulated Entities
1. Subject Coatings
The EPA received several comments requesting clarification
regarding the definition of ``coating'' and what particular coatings
are subject to the architectural coatings rule. The EPA has modified
the definition of ``coating'' so that it no longer defines a coating as
an application that creates a film when applied. The revised definition
states that a coating is a ``material applied onto or impregnated
into'' a substrate. The EPA did not intend to limit rule applicability
to film-building products.
Commenters questioned whether coatings recommended for both
architectural uses and non-architectural uses would be subject to the
rule. The commenters also questioned whether shop-applied and factory-
applied coatings would be subject. Additional commenters requested
clarification as to whether adhesives are subject to the rule.
The architectural coatings rule applies to coatings ``recommended
for field application to stationary structures and their appurtenances,
to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.'' Therefore, the rule
does not apply to coatings that are marketed solely for shop
application, such as in a manufacturing setting, or coatings marketed
solely for application to non-stationary structures, such as aircraft
and ships. However, a coating that is recommended by the manufacturer
or importer for use as an architectural coating is subject to the
architectural coatings rule even if the coating is also recommended for
non-architectural uses. The fact that a coating regulated by the
architectural coatings rule may also be subject to other rules with
different requirements does not alter the manufacturer's or importer's
obligation to meet the requirements of the architectural coatings rule.
The EPA did not intend to regulate adhesives of any kind in the
architectural coatings rule. The EPA intends to regulate industrial
adhesives as a separate product category under section 183(e)
authority.
To clarify the EPA's intent regarding what products are covered by
this final rule, the definition of architectural coating has been
revised to exclude adhesives and coatings recommended solely for shop
application or for application to non-stationary structures. For
additional clarity, definitions of ``adhesive'' and ``shop
application'' have also been added to the final rule.
The EPA has added definitions of ``imported'' and ``manufactured''
to the final rule to clarify the point at which an architectural
coating becomes subject to the requirements in the rule. The final rule
also includes additional language in the definitions of ``importer''
and ``manufacturer'' to clarify that all divisions of a company,
subsidiaries, and parent companies are considered to be a single
importer or manufacturer for the purpose of this rule.
2. Regulation of Processors
Section 183(e)(1)(C) of the Act allows the regulation of processors
of consumer and commercial products. For the proposed architectural
coatings rule, the EPA considered regulating processors as well as
manufacturers and importers. ``Processors'' would be defined as
individuals who add organic thinner to coatings in a commercial or
industrial setting at the point of application. The EPA's concern was
to provide a means
[[Page 48858]]
to enforce against thinning of coatings beyond manufacturers'
recommendations. Thus, the EPA considered a provision to prohibit an
applicator from using organic solvents to thin a coating beyond the
manufacturer's recommendation.
In the proposal preamble (61 FR 32737), the EPA requested comment
on the possible regulation of processors under the architectural
coatings rule. Commenters generally opposed the regulation of
applicators, arguing that: (1) over-thinning is not likely to occur
since the proposed VOC content limits are reasonable; (2) rules
promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act are not intended to apply
to end-users or applicators; and (3) restrictions on thinning at the
point of application would be difficult to enforce. The commenters
stated that the term ``processors'' was intended to mean entities that
repackage coating materials or further enhance finished products before
they are offered for sale to end-users.
The final rule does not include processors as a regulated entity.
The EPA believes that end-users' compliance with thinning restrictions
for architectural coatings would be difficult to enforce in practice.
Instead, the EPA has determined that it will be more effective to guard
against excessive VOC emissions from thinning by taking into account
the amount of thinning in advance. Thus, the final limits are expressed
as VOC content of coating ``thinned to the manufacturer's maximum
recommendation.'' The EPA believes that these limits provide adequate
assurance that compliant coatings will be manufactured to perform
optimally with recommended thinning. Regulation of processors would not
add significantly to the effectiveness of the rule.
C. General Comments on Determination of Best Available Controls
Many commenters provided general comments on the overall stringency
of the VOC content limits in the proposed rule. One group of
commenters, composed mainly of manufacturers and trade organizations
representing coating users and manufacturers, stated that the VOC
content limits in the proposed rule represent BAC and are
technologically and economically achievable. One of these commenters,
representing a national association of coating manufacturers, stated
that the proposal recognized the need for solventborne coatings in
certain specialty areas, as well as in some more general usage
categories, and adequately addressed the fact that the same coating
must be able to perform in all regions and climates of the United
States. Another commenter, representing a national association of
coating users, stated that the proposed limits fit squarely within
current technologies and are consistent with various existing State
regulations. And finally, a commenter representing another national
trade association of coating users, stated that the proposed table of
VOC content limits will not significantly increase construction costs
and will not appreciably reduce coating performance.
A second group of commenters, mainly composed of individual State
regulatory agencies, organizations of State and regional regulatory
agencies, and environmental groups, stated that they did not support
the VOC content limits in the rule because they believe they are too
lenient. Two of the commenters, representing environmental groups,
contended that the EPA's BAC determination did not include
consideration of lower VOC coatings that have been developed since
1990. Several of the commenters cited the existence of more stringent
State and local architectural coating regulations that have been in
place for many years as evidence that the proposed limits do not
represent BAC. Several of the commenters added that the proposed rule
falls short of State VOC reduction goals and may result in the States
adopting more stringent control measures for this source category and
for other source categories. The majority of the commenters in this
group supported an alternative, more stringent, table of VOC content
limits submitted by one of the commenters. (The commenter also
suggested a second phase of limits that would take effect in the
future. For comments and responses regarding the suggested second phase
of limits, see section V.P of this preamble). The alternative table
contains more stringent limits for several categories and would achieve
a 30-percent emission reduction (calculated on a solids basis). The
more stringent VOC content limits in the table are based on the 1989
California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measure.
Finally, a third group of commenters, composed mainly of coating
manufacturers, did not support the limits in the rule because they
believe they are too stringent. These commenters stated that low-VOC
products (i.e., products meeting the proposed standards) do not perform
as well as higher-VOC (non-compliant) products. These commenters
claimed that low-VOC coatings are too thick and require considerable
thinning to apply, are less durable and require more frequent
repainting, and exhibit poor gloss properties. Two of the commenters
explained that these performance problems could result in more
emissions, rather than less. Two of the commenters stated that
available paint raw materials are not adequate to reformulate every
non-compliant coating the paint industry offers and still meet customer
performance requirements. One commenter stated that the proposed rule
will require a massive reformulation of products in the paint and
coating industry. The commenter claimed that some organizations were
supporting lower limits based on improper data or based on
environmental conditions that do not represent circumstances in other
areas.
The EPA believes that the final rule represents BAC. Best available
control is ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, and energy impacts, is achievable.'' In developing the rule,
the EPA considered many factors in evaluating the economic and
technological feasibility of different VOC content levels and different
degrees of product reformulation. These factors included: (1) limits in
State/local regulations; (2) coating VOC content and sales information;
(3) performance considerations; (4) cost considerations; and (5) market
impacts.
The sources of information for these factors included: (1) pre-
proposal letters; (2) the 1992 industry survey (collected 1990 data);
(3) public comments on the proposed rule; (4) follow-up discussions
with commenters to gather additional technical information; (5) State/
local regulations and pre-proposal discussions with State/local
regulators; (6) input from coating manufacturers and other
stakeholders; and (7) EPA expertise. Considering all these factors, the
EPA concluded that the VOC content limits in table 1 of the rule, along
with the exceedance fee provisions and the tonnage exemption, represent
BAC for architectural coatings. The EPA's process for developing BAC
was described in the proposal preamble (61 FR 32737) and is further
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Technical Feasibility and Coating Performance Issues
Throughout development of this rule, there has been debate among
stakeholders over the degree to which the VOC content in architectural
coatings can be reduced and on the performance characteristics of low-
VOC coatings. The term ``performance'' refers to the coating qualities
that are
[[Page 48859]]
acceptable to consumers and that maximize the interval required between
repainting. Performance is particularly difficult to assess. As
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 32738), these
acceptable qualities can vary significantly depending on the consumer
and the coating category. There is no consensus within the
architectural coatings industry on standards by which to evaluate
acceptable coating performance. Therefore, the EPA requested comment on
the technological feasibility of the limits in the proposed table of
standards and on performance issues. The proposal requested
documentation, tests, and factual evidence to support or refute claims
about performance and the technological feasibility of low-VOC systems.
The EPA evaluated all data that were submitted by commenters
pertaining to the feasibility of the rule and sought additional
information that was reasonably available. In evaluating the degree of
emission reduction that represents BAC, the EPA took into consideration
that these requirements would apply to all areas of the country and to
all manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings within a
specific time frame (i.e., approximately 1 year from promulgation).
Based on the public comments received, a number of changes were made to
the proposed rule. These changes are discussed in section 2.2.4 of the
BID (Coating Categories and VOC Content Limits). In some cases,
commenters claimed that the rule is not feasible or does not represent
BAC, but provided no data to support the general claim. In such cases,
the EPA sought additional information that was reasonably available and
considered the comments in the context of the overall BAC decision, but
often found no basis for making substantive changes to the proposed
rule.
Relationship of BAC to State and Local Regulations
State and local regulations were one of the primary factors used by
the EPA to develop BAC. As stated in the proposal preamble (61 FR
32737), State and local architectural coating requirements were used
prior to proposal as a starting point in determining ``what categories
and associated VOC limits might constitute the degree of emissions
reduction that represents BAC.'' After proposal, the EPA used State and
local architectural coating requirements as a primary factor in the
evaluation of public comments on the proposed VOC content limits.
However, the EPA does not agree with commenters who believe that,
at a minimum, BAC for the national rule should be equivalent to or more
stringent than the lowest emission limits that exist in any State
regulation (as presented in a table of standards by one commenter). In
the development of a national rule under section 183(e), the EPA has
the obligation to determine that the emission limits are
technologically and economically feasible on a national scale. State
and local VOC limits are based on coating performance under the local
meteorological conditions and patterns of coating demand, some of which
may be very different than in other locations. Moreover, based on local
air quality and existing regulatory programs, a State or local agency
may set rules based on a balancing of technological, economic, and
environmental factors that might differ from the balance appropriate
for a national rule.
Therefore, the EPA departed from the State and local requirements
where other factors, such as information on VOC content and sales,
performance, costs, and market effects indicated that the limits were
not technologically or economically feasible on a national scale.
The Role of the Exceedance Fee and Tonnage Exemption in BAC
While the EPA believes that the technology exists to meet the
limits in table 1 of this subpart, some manufacturers may need more
time beyond the compliance deadline to obtain the necessary technology.
Still other manufacturers may find that reformulation of some of their
specialty products that are produced in low volume is not cost-
effective. The exceedance fee and tonnage exemption provisions were
included in the final rule to minimize impacts on the supply of coating
products and to avoid unnecessary impacts upon small manufacturers. The
exceedance fee (discussed in section 2.4 of the BID) is intended to
allow manufacturers and importers additional time to develop low-VOC
formulations while providing an appropriate economic incentive to
encourage reformulation. The tonnage exemption (see section 2.2.1.2 of
the BID) is intended to allow manufacturers and importers the
flexibility to continue to market certain low-volume product lines
where reformulation of a specialty product used for unique applications
may not be cost-effective. The EPA anticipates that use of the tonnage
exemption and exceedance fee will reduce the potential VOC emission
reductions of the rule by only a small percentage and that foregoing
this portion of the reductions to achieve other objectives of the BAC
analysis is an appropriate balancing of the relevant factors to achieve
BAC reductions. The EPA believes that all available data indicate that
the system of regulation adopted in the final rule, consisting of VOC
content limits, an exceedance fee provision, and a tonnage exemption,
reflects BAC for the architectural coatings category.
Consideration of New Low-VOC Coatings
The EPA recognizes that the 1992 industry survey that the EPA used
as one of the factors for developing BAC collected 1990 data. Although
the data in this survey are now 7 years old, they still represent the
most complete set of data for the architectural coatings industry (the
survey captured approximately 75 percent of the coating volume). In
addition, the industry survey was only one of the many factors used in
determining BAC. Information on advances since 1990 were obtained from
over 300 pre-proposal letters, over 200 public comment letters, over 40
follow-up telephone calls, and information obtained from State
regulatory agencies. The EPA believes that the final rule represents
BAC based on the survey database and other data available to the EPA.
The EPA acknowledges that there are coating technologies in
existence with VOC contents lower than those listed in table 1.
However, section 183(e) of the Act does not require the EPA to set BAC
at the level of the lowest-VOC product. It requires that the EPA
determine BAC based on ``the degree of emissions reduction that the
Administrator determines on the basis of technological and economic
feasibility, health, and energy impacts, is achievable.'' To determine
whether a more stringent rule would meet the criteria for BAC, the EPA
would need to undertake additional study of the recent technological
developments for the architectural coatings category. As discussed in
section 2.6 of the Architectural Coatings BID (see ADDRESSES section of
this preamble), such an additional study is under consideration.
However, the EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to delay
issuing this rule to await the results of that additional study.
D. Changes in Proposed Coating Categories
Several commenters addressed the selection of the coating
categories to which the rule applies and the VOC content limits for
specific categories. In response to these comments, the EPA has
modified the definitions of several
[[Page 48860]]
of the proposed categories and has added seven new coating categories.
In addition, the EPA has modified the proposed VOC content limits for
several categories based on information provided by commenters. This
section of the preamble discusses the changes made to the requirements
for the proposed coating categories. (The new categories are described
in section V.E below.) A detailed discussion of all of the comments and
responses pertaining to the proposed coating categories and their VOC
content limits is contained in section 2.2.4.3 of the Architectural
Coatings BID (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Some commenters suggested changes and clarifications to the
proposed category definitions. In response to these comments, the EPA
has changed the definitions of a number of the coating categories. The
purpose of these changes is to clarify which particular coatings are
included in these categories.
There were also many requests to revise the VOC content limits in
the proposed rule. The EPA contacted many of the commenters, most of
whom were coating manufacturers, to obtain additional information in
order to evaluate these requests more fully. Based upon consideration
of the public comments and additional information obtained since
proposal, the EPA has changed the VOC content limits where deemed
appropriate. In addition, the final rule provides a tonnage exemption
and an exceedance fee option. These provisions provide flexible
compliance options that accommodate the need for higher VOC contents in
unique or niche products, and in limited-use products. The significant
comments and changes made with regard to the VOC content limits are
discussed in the following paragraphs. The EPA's rationale for each of
these issues is explained more fully in the Architectural Coatings BID
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Roof Coatings and Bituminous Coatings and Mastics
One commenter, a national trade association of roof coating
manufacturers, supported the proposed VOC content limits for roof
coatings (250 grams per liter (g/l)) and for bituminous coatings and
mastics (500 g/l), and the inclusion of all bituminous coatings in the
bituminous coatings and mastics category. Another commenter suggested
reducing the VOC content limit for bituminous coatings and mastics from
500 g/l to 350 g/l. A third commenter suggested adopting one roof
coating category that includes bituminous materials at a VOC content
limit of 300 g/l, consistent with State architectural coating rules.
This commenter argued that the proposed rule permitted bituminous
roofing materials to comply with a less stringent limit (500 g/l) than
other roofing materials (250 g/l) and that this discrepancy afforded an
unfair competitive advantage to the bituminous roofing products.
The EPA reviewed its basis for establishing the proposed category
for bituminous coatings and mastics and VOC content limit of 500 g/l
and has decided to retain this category and limit in the final rule.
The EPA reviewed information submitted by a national trade association
comprised of 60 bituminous and nonbituminous coatings manufacturers and
suppliers, before proposal (Docket Item No. II-D-56), regarding the
composition, specialized manufacture, performance, and use limitations
of these coatings. According to this information, a significant portion
of these coatings are needed for repair and maintenance of existing
roofs as well as for installing new roofing systems. The trade
association pointed out that waterborne bituminous coatings and mastics
are not practical in almost all of the applications where solventborne
bituminous coatings and mastics are used and that coating performance
comparisons between waterborne and solventborne bituminous coatings and
mastics range from good to very poor, depending on conditions. Another
national trade association for roofing contractors, which has over
3,000 members represented in all 50 States, argued that there is no
viable alternative to solventborne bituminous coatings in many
circumstances and pointed to bituminous primers as an example of this.
According to this trade association, if the VOC content limit were
reduced by any significant amount in these primers, the adhesion
properties, the application process, and the life of the roof would
suffer dramatically. Therefore, in order to satisfy performance
requirements of bituminous coatings and mastics nationwide, the EPA has
retained this category with a VOC content limit of 500 g/l in the final
rule.
With respect to the comments on the separate category for roof
coatings, the EPA has decided to retain the category as proposed.
Although there are several State architectural coating rules that have
a VOC content limit of 300 g/l for roof coatings, the EPA believes that
the national Roof Coatings Manufacturers Association's support (Docket
Item No. IV-D-181) of the proposed VOC content limit for roof coatings
at 250 g/l provides persuasive evidence that this limit is achievable
nationwide. Therefore, the EPA has retained the VOC content limit of
250 g/l for roof coatings in the final rule.
Concrete Curing Compounds
Several commenters commented on the proposed VOC content limit of
350 g/l for concrete curing compounds, which are used predominantly in
highway construction. Seven commenters stated that the proposed limit
for concrete curing compounds is achievable based on existing
technology, and one of these commenters maintained that the limit could
be lowered to 300 g/l. On the other hand, one commenter took issue with
the achievability and performance at the proposed limit of 350 g/l. The
latter commenter suggested a VOC content limit of 625 g/l for this
category, arguing that the proposed limit would eliminate most concrete
curing membranes from the market, and that many companies do not sell
curing compounds in States that have the 350 g/l limit.
In addition to consideration of these comments, the EPA reviewed
the VOC content limits for this category in State rules. Several
States, including Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
New York have had a VOC content limit of 350 g/l for concrete curing
compounds for several years. The availability of compliant products in
these States suggests that the limits are achievable, notwithstanding
that not all manufacturers have chosen to market in those States. Based
on the information provided by the commenters in favor of the proposed
limits and upon the existing State rules, the EPA has concluded that
the proposed VOC content limit of 350 g/l for concrete curing compounds
is technologically achievable and has retained this limit in the final
rule.
Graphic Arts Coatings
Two commenters indicated concern about the performance of shop-
applied graphic arts coatings at the proposed VOC content limit of 500
g/l. One commenter's specific concerns with coatings at this level
included difficulty in achieving variation in gloss levels, variation
in the required drying times in the drying room (implying shop-applied
coatings), need for greater application amounts, and higher costs.
Graphic arts coatings recommended by the manufacturer solely for shop
applications are not required to meet the 500 g/l VOC content limit. As
discussed earlier, the EPA has revised the definition of architectural
coating to
[[Page 48861]]
clarify that coatings recommended by the manufacturer solely for shop
application are not subject to the rule. In addition, the definition of
graphic arts coatings has been modified by removing the reference to
in-shop coatings, and a definition of ``shop application'' has been
added to the rule.
Based on a review of the 1990 VOC emission inventory survey and
State architectural coating rules, the EPA determined that the 500 g/l
VOC content limit for field-applied graphic arts coatings should not be
changed.
Shellac--Clear
Two commenters requested that the EPA raise the VOC content limit
for clear shellac from the proposed level of 650 g/l to 730 g/l. The
commenters requested the higher level to accommodate the degree of
thinning required for certain uses of shellac to meet performance
specifications. According to information provided by one commenter, the
elevated cost and limited availability of shellac (referring to
secretions of the lac beetle) minimize the potential use of this
product.
Based on a review of State architectural coating rules, which limit
clear shellac VOC content to 730 g/l, and the information provided by
the commenters, the EPA has raised the VOC content limit for clear
shellac from 650 g/l to 730 g/l.
Nuclear Coatings
Four commenters objected to the proposed 420 g/l VOC content limit
for nuclear coatings, in light of the 450 g/l limit for industrial
maintenance coatings. The commenters pointed out that nuclear coatings
must meet more exacting performance specifications (set by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission) than industrial maintenance coatings and,
therefore, should not be subject to a more stringent VOC content limit.
One commenter was also concerned that the proposed limit offered no
flexibility for cold weather thinning as provided in the Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for this category.
The EPA agrees that the nuclear coatings category VOC content limit
should not be more stringent than the VOC content limit for industrial
maintenance coatings since nuclear coatings are subject to some of the
same extreme environmental conditions as industrial maintenance
coatings, and must also meet further specifications and rigorous
requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The nuclear coatings
category is intended to include coatings manufactured for use at
nuclear facilities to ensure operational safety, and the definition
requires that these coatings meet various testing requirements. The EPA
expects that a limited amount of coatings will be affected by this
change due to the various testing requirements to qualify for
classification in this category and the limited number of nuclear
facilities where such coatings are used. Also, as pointed out in the
proposal preamble (61 FR 32739), this is one of 17 specialty coating
categories that did not appear in existing State architectural coating
rules, and no data were collected in the 1990 VOC emissions inventory
survey. In consideration of performance specifications for this
category and the need to allow for thinning, the EPA has raised the VOC
content limit for the nuclear coatings category to 450 g/l. This limit
is the same as the limit for industrial maintenance coatings.
Antifouling Coatings
Two commenters requested a higher VOC content limit for the
antifouling coating category (400 g/l proposed), and one of these
commenters specifically requested that the EPA increase the level to
450 g/l. One of the commenters indicated that antifouling architectural
coatings are generally not applied at fixed installations where
painting conditions are more easily controlled, and that a thinning
allowance should be included to accommodate application of the coating
in cold weather.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the limit for antifouling
coatings should be raised to allow for cold weather thinning. Also,
similar to nuclear coatings, these coatings are subject to some of the
same extreme environmental conditions as industrial maintenance
coatings and must meet other rigorous requirements, such as those under
the FIFRA. Moreover, this is one of 17 specialty coating categories
that did not appear in existing State architectural coating rules, and
no data were collected in the 1990 VOC emissions inventory survey.
Therefore, the EPA believes a low volume of coatings will be affected
by a change to the proposed limit. The final rule specifies a VOC
content limit of 450 g/l for this category.
Floor Coatings
One commenter suggested that the EPA either add an exemption
paragraph to clarify that floor coatings that meet the definition for
industrial maintenance coatings are subject to the industrial
maintenance coating VOC content limit of 450 g/l or specify that the
floor coating category applies to floor coatings intended for
residential use. The commenter believed that high performance floor
coatings cannot achieve the 400 g/l VOC level proposed for floor
coatings. Although the commenter reportedly has developed lower-
performing systems that meet the 400 g/l level, the commenter stated
that they are not acceptable for all applications.
Two commenters recommended that opaque floor paint be regulated at
a 400 g/l VOC level. However, one of these commenters requested
clarification of whether the floor coating category included clear
floor finishes, such as varnishes.
The EPA has retained the floor coatings category, with a modified
definition, and VOC content limit of 400 g/l as proposed. The floor
coatings category includes opaque coatings that have a high degree of
abrasion resistance that are formulated for application to flooring,
including but not limited to decks, porches, and steps in a residential
setting. The EPA did not intend to include floor coatings that meet the
definition of industrial maintenance coatings under the floor coating
category. The definition of floor coating has been changed to specify
that it applies to floor coatings intended for use in a residential
setting. Thus, floor coatings that meet the definition of industrial
maintenance coatings are subject to only the industrial maintenance
coating category limit of 450 g/l.
Based on information from commenters, the EPA agrees that opaque
floor coatings should be subject to the 400 g/l limit as proposed.
However, clear varnishes that may be recommended for use as floor
coatings are subject to the VOC content limit of 450 g/l for clear
varnishes. An exception paragraph has been included in Sec. 59.402 of
the rule to clarify this category overlap.
Waterproofing Sealers and Treatments
Eight commenters provided assessments of the achievability of the
proposed VOC content limit for waterproofing sealers and treatments.
Five commenters suggested that the EPA raise the VOC content limit, and
two commenters suggested that the EPA lower it. One commenter
maintained that there is no need to distinguish between clear and
opaque waterproofing sealers and treatments (600 g/l and 400 g/l,
respectively) in the rule since many opaque sealers penetrate the
substrate and perform the same function as clear sealers. This
manufacturer requested a VOC content limit of 700 g/l for all
waterproofing sealers and treatments and explained that this level
would still
[[Page 48862]]
require reformulation of existing technologies. Another manufacturer
has reported that it has not been successful in reformulating to meet
the 600 g/l level for clear waterproofing sealers and treatments. On
the other hand, one manufacturer strongly encouraged the EPA to adopt a
lower VOC content limit of 350 g/l applicable to both clear and opaque
waterproofing sealers and treatments based on the VOC content of its
products, which are available now in the marketplace. Another commenter
agreed that the proposed levels for waterproofing sealers are
technologically and economically feasible.
Based on evaluation of the comments and a review of survey data and
State architectural coating regulations, the EPA has combined the clear
and opaque waterproofing treatment sealer categories into one category
with a VOC content limit of 600 g/l. The EPA agrees that there is no
need to distinguish between clear and opaque waterproofing sealers and
treatments since many opaque sealers penetrate the substrate and
perform the same function as clear sealers. The EPA believes that,
based on information provided by these commenters/manufacturers, the
appropriate limit for this combined category is 600 g/l. Before
proposal, industry representatives (Docket Item No. III-B-1) argued
that multipurpose waterproofing sealers at 400 g/l do not meet minimum
performance criteria for clear waterproofing sealers (that is, 60-
percent water repellency for wood and 1 percent or less water
absorption for brick). The representatives stated that 400 g/l products
are high-solids products that may leave an oily residue or cause
darkening of the surfaces to which they are applied and, thus, product
performance may not meet industry standards. Combining clear and opaque
waterproofing treatment sealers into one category is consistent with
all existing State rules, which do not divide the category into clear
and opaque waterproofing sealers and treatments. The State
architectural coating VOC content limits for waterproofing sealers and
treatments are either 400 g/l (for example, Arizona and California) or
600 g/l (Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York).
E. Addition of New Coating Categories
The EPA received requests to establish 20 new coating categories in
the final rule. In response to these comments, the EPA has established
seven new categories: (1) calcimine recoaters; (2) concrete surface
retarders; (3) concrete curing and sealing compounds; (4) conversion
varnishes; (5) zone markings; (6) faux finishing/glazing; and (7) stain
controllers. The EPA also evaluated requests, but did not establish new
categories, for the following coatings: (1) adhesion promoters; (2)
asbestos and lead-based paint encapsulation; (3) concrete/masonry
conditioners; (4) porcelain repair coatings; (5) marine/architectural
coatings; (6) alkali-resistant primers; (7) tung oil finishes; (8)
lacquer stains; (9) elastomeric high performance industrial finishes;
(10) low solids coatings; (11) oil-modified urethanes; (12)
thermoplastic (treatment) sealers; and (13) zinc-rich coatings. In
general, new categories were not established for these coatings because
the EPA determined that it is technologically and economically feasible
for coating manufacturers and importers to achieve compliance with the
rule. Further discussion of the rationale for the EPA's decisions on
the new categories is contained in section 2.2.4.2 of the Architectural
Coatings BID referenced under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
In general, the EPA considered creation of new categories if
commenters submitted information supporting higher VOC content limits
for such products than the otherwise applicable limits. The EPA
considered the data submitted by commenters and obtained all reasonably
available additional data to evaluate these requests. In cases where
the EPA concluded that the proposed emission limits were not
achievable, the EPA established a separate category with an appropriate
emission limit. The following is a discussion of the rationale for each
of the new coating categories and its VOC content limit.
Calcimine Recoaters
Under the proposed standards, calcimine recoaters would have been
subject to the VOC content limit for interior flat coatings (250 g/l).
However, several commenters stated that calcimine recoaters have a
higher VOC content of 475 g/l, cannot be reformulated, are low-volume
coatings, and serve a unique function of recoating water soluble
calcimine paints. These paints are used in Victorian and Early American
homes, especially on ceilings. Due to their low density, calcimine
recoaters do not disbond the existing calcimine ceiling coatings, as
conventional (250 g/l VOC) high-solids flat alkyd paints would tend to
do. If a calcimine recoater is not used, the only alternative is to
remove the existing coating, which is labor-intensive and expensive.
Because these low-volume coatings reportedly cannot be reformulated,
their composition is unique, and there is no substitute for these
products, the EPA has added a separate category for calcimine recoater
products to the rule with a VOC content limit of 475 g/l.
Concrete Curing and Sealing Compounds
Under the proposed rule, these coatings would be subject to the 350
g/l VOC content limit for concrete curing compounds. However,
commenters presented information not previously considered by the EPA
demonstrating that compounds designed for curing and sealing, as
opposed to those designed for curing only, have different technical
specifications that make it difficult to achieve the 350 g/l level.
Concrete curing and sealing compounds function as longer term sealers
that provide protection, aesthetic benefits, and durability in addition
to curing. Commenters pointed out that there are separate American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods available for each of
these categories and that ASTM Committee experts and at least two
government agencies consider them distinct categories with different
performance requirements.
Through follow-up phone calls with several concrete curing and
sealing coating manufacturers, the EPA confirmed that concrete curing
and sealing products are typically sold at levels much higher than 350
g/l. While waterborne products below 350 g/l are available, some
industry representatives cited drawbacks such as poor low-temperature
performance and stability. Since these products must often be used in
low-temperature environments, the EPA agrees that the VOC content limit
should reflect this usage. Therefore, the final rule includes a new
category for concrete curing and sealing compounds. Based on an
analysis of VOC content and sales data for these products, the EPA has
established the VOC content limit at 700 g/l.
Concrete Surface Retarders
Concrete surface retarders do not fall within any of the proposed
categories except the general category for interior flat coatings with
a VOC content limit of 250 g/l. These products are generally used in a
manufacturing setting at a precast facility, but a small volume of
products are field-applied. Commenters argued that these products
cannot meet the 250 g/l level and, furthermore, that they are not
coatings and should not be subject to the rule. However, they requested
a VOC content limit of 780 g/l if the EPA regulated these products.
[[Page 48863]]
The EPA has concluded that concrete surface retarders meet the
rule's definition of a ``coating.'' Concrete surface retarders that are
recommended by the manufacturer for use in the field at job sites are,
therefore, subject to the rule. When retarders are recommended by the
manufacturer solely for use in a manufacturing setting, such as at a
precast facility, which is the typical situation, they are not subject
to the rule. The EPA determined that concrete surface retarders that
are used in the field at the actual job location are specialized, low-
volume coatings used in limited circumstances, and there is no lower
VOC content substitute for the function of these products. Therefore,
the EPA has included a separate category for these products in the
final rule, with a VOC content limit of 780 g/l as requested by the
commenters.
Zone Marking Coatings
Under the proposed rule, zone marking coatings were subject to the
150 g/l VOC content limit for traffic marking coatings. Zone marking
coatings are those used to mark surfaces such as parking lots,
driveways, sidewalks, and airport runways; they are generally applied
by small commercial applicators. In contrast, traffic marking coatings
are applied to streets and highways and are usually applied by large
contractors or State Departments of Transportation. The commenters
noted two issues associated with meeting the 150 g/l content limit for
zone marking coatings. First, the 150 g/l content limit could only be
met with waterborne coatings, which require different application
equipment than solventborne coatings. Small applicators would be
disproportionately impacted by the cost of acquiring the new equipment
that is compatible with waterborne zone marking coatings. Secondly, the
commenters asserted that waterborne zone marking coatings do not dry or
cure properly during high humidity or low temperatures, conditions
under which they must sometimes be applied.
After consideration of these comments, the EPA has added a separate
category for zone marking coatings and has established the VOC content
limit at 450 g/l. This level allows the use of solventborne coatings.
However, the new category applies only to zone marking coatings sold in
containers of 5 gallons or less. Available information reveals that
State Departments of Transportation buy traffic marking coatings in
larger than 5 gallon containers. Thus, this size restriction should
limit the use of zone marking coatings to applications smaller than
those of general traffic marking coatings intended for use on public
roads and highways. Zone marking coatings sold in larger containers
fall within the traffic marking coatings category and are subject to
the 150 g/l limit. The establishment of this category allows the use of
solventborne coatings by small applicators and under adverse drying and
curing conditions.
Conversion Varnishes
Conversion varnishes are specialty products used by contractors for
wood floor finishing. Under the proposed rule, these coatings would
have been subject to the 450 g/l VOC content limit for varnishes.
Commenters argued that conversion varnishes cannot be reformulated to
meet the 450 g/l level, and that they have unique chemical formulation
and performance specifications, compared to other varnishes, (i.e.,
appearance and proven durability). Furthermore, the commenters noted
that only three companies manufacture conversion varnishes and that
they market them only to licensed wood flooring contractors, thereby
implying that these are specialty coatings deserving different
standards.
In response to these comments, the final rule includes a new
category for conversion varnishes with a VOC content limit of 725 g/l.
Due to the chemical make-up of these products, manufacturers reportedly
have been unable to reformulate to meet the 450 g/l level for
varnishes. The EPA believes that the category comprises a well-defined
coating technology that is limited, due to its chemical formulation, to
the applications for which it is intended. Several wood flooring
contractors' comments support the performance arguments made by the
manufacturers. The EPA determined that the VOC content limit of 725 g/l
is the lowest level achievable based on analysis of currently available
products.
The EPA has added a definition for this category to the rule. The
category definition was developed from information provided by two of
the manufacturers.
Faux Finishing/Glazing
Under the proposed rule, faux finishing/glazing coatings were
subject to the VOC content limit of 380 g/l for nonflat interior
coatings. Faux finishing/glazing coatings include waterborne acrylic
finishes and other waterborne products with miscible VOC that are
designed to retard drying time. One commenter stated that these
products provide open time required for wet-in-wet techniques, such as
faux wood grain, faux marble, and simulated aging, which require the
finish to remain wet for an extended period of time.
The commenter stated that, based on formulation including water,
the calculated VOC content of these coatings can range up to 340 g/l.
However, because the products are waterborne, the VOC ``less water''
calculation results in a range up to 700 g/l. The commenter stated that
the VOC content limit for a similar category (Japan/faux finishing
coatings) has been proposed by California's South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) at 700 g/l. The commenter stated that, to
date, there has not been an identifiable way to reformulate these
products to achieve a lower VOC while maintaining the characteristics
required for acceptable use.
Upon review and evaluation of available information, the EPA has
determined that creating a separate category for faux finishing/glazing
with a VOC content limit of 700 g/l is warranted. According to the
commenter, there are no competing compliant products on the market.
Despite 2 years of reported reformulation efforts, this coating cannot
meet the proposed VOC content limit of 380 g/l for nonflat interior
coatings. The EPA notes that this specialty coating category is low
volume and that the foregone VOC emission reductions that may result
from setting a higher limit for this category should be limited.
Stain Controllers
Under the proposed rule, stain controllers were subject to the VOC
content limit of 400g/l for sealers. ``Stain controllers'' (also called
``wood conditioners'' or ``prestains'') are products that are applied
to soft woods before applying a stain to prevent uneven penetration or
blotching of the stain by filling those pores where excess penetration
would occur. One commenter asserted that these products cannot achieve
the 400 g/l level for sealers. According to the commenter, after 3
years of reformulation efforts, they have concluded that it is
technologically infeasible to reformulate stain controllers to the
proposed 400 g/l VOC content limit. The current VOC content of the
commenter's products is 714 g/l. According to the commenter, the 400 g/
l level for sealers would force a very high solids content, which would
make these products unfit for use as prestains. The commenter asserted
that, in order to be effective, stain controllers must have a very low
solids content because excessive solids will overload the texture of
the substrate so that the wood will not properly accept the stain.
[[Page 48864]]
Water cannot be added to these products because they are used almost
exclusively to treat interior fine wood and contact with water would
produce an undesirable grain-raising effect in the wood. Stain
controllers are low-volume, specialized products that are important to
the consumer and have a minimal effect on air quality. The commenter
asserted that about 97 percent of total sales for these products are
already exempt under the small container exemptions in regulated areas.
After review and evaluation of these comments and follow-up
information provided by the commenter, the EPA has determined that a
new category for stain controllers with a VOC content limit of 720 g/l
is warranted. This is a specialized, limited use product that is
important to consumers, and the EPA believes that the additional
emissions from this low-volume coating would be negligible. According
to the commenter, reformulation attempts during the last 3 years have
been unsuccessful, and the commenter considers it technologically
infeasible to reformulate stain controllers to achieve the proposed VOC
content limit of 400 g/l for sealers (the category the commenter's
coating would be subject to under the proposed rule). According to the
commenter, there are competing waterbased products meeting the proposed
limit on the market, but there are performance problems with these
coatings. The EPA believes that this is an example of a low-volume,
specialty niche coating for which it may not be cost-effective for the
manufacturer to continue reformulation attempts. Therefore, the final
rule contains a separate category for stain controllers.
F. Category Overlap
Many commenters expressed concern about the VOC content limit that
applies to coatings that fall into more than one category. The proposed
rule stated that if a manufacturer made the representation that a
coating was suitable for use in more than one category, then the
coating must comply with the VOC limit for the category with the most
restrictive limit. Commenters objected that a coating may be
``suitable'' for many uses, even though not intended by the
manufacturer for those uses. Coatings could potentially be used in ways
for which they were never intended and, thus, be subject to unduly
restrictive VOC content limits.
The EPA agrees with the commenters and has reworded the provisions
as suggested by the commenters. In the final rule, if the manufacturer
or importer makes any representation that indicates that the coating
``meets the definition'' of more than one coating category, then the
most restrictive limit applies. The EPA has removed the phrase ``may be
suitable for use'' from the rule so that the manufacturer or importer
is not responsible to meet the limits of other categories if consumers
choose to use them for purposes not recommended by the manufacturer or
importer. However, if a manufacturer or importer indicates that a
coating may be suitable for uses like coatings in other categories, the
EPA will consider this a representation that requires the coating to
meet the most restrictive applicable limit. Thus, determination of the
applicable category and VOC content limit is based on a comparison
between the technical criteria in the rule's definitions and the
coating manufacturer's or importer's representations.
The proposed rule also included exceptions for seven types of
coatings to the requirement that the most restrictive limit always
applies. The EPA recognizes that these seven coatings potentially meet
the definition of more than one category of coating, but cannot meet
the more restrictive limit. For these exceptions, the rule explicitly
specifies that the less restrictive limit applies. Commenters suggested
additional instances of overlap that might also warrant special
exceptions. After considering the information presented by these
commenters, the EPA has included further exceptions, in addition to the
proposed exceptions, to the most restrictive limit provision. The EPA
has added the following exceptions: (1) anti-graffiti coatings, high
temperature coatings, impacted immersion coatings, thermoplastic rubber
coatings and mastics, repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings,
pretreatment wash primers, and flow coatings are not required to meet
the VOC content limit for industrial maintenance coatings; (2)
industrial maintenance coatings are not required to meet the VOC
content limit for primers and undercoaters, sealers, or mastic texture
coatings; (3) varnishes and conversion varnishes used as floor coatings
are not required to meet the VOC content limit for floor coatings; (4)
sanding sealers are not required to meet the VOC content limit for
quick-dry sealers; (5) waterproofing sealers and treatment coatings are
not required to meet the VOC content limit for quick-dry sealers; (6)
quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters are not required to meet
the VOC content limit for primers and undercoaters; (7) nonferrous
ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants are not required to
meet the VOC content limit for lacquers; and (8) antenna coatings are
not required to meet the VOC content limit for industrial maintenance
coatings or primers. These exceptions are discussed more fully in
section 2.2.3.14 of the Architectural Coatings BID (see ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).
G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA presented the concept
of an exemption for coatings produced in low volumes and requested
comment on this potential provision. The EPA described this exemption
as a compliance option under which, ``any manufacturer or importer may
request an exemption from the VOC levels in table 1 of this subpart for
specialized coating products that are manufactured or imported in
quantities less than a specified number of gallons per year.'' Twenty-
one commenters provided comments on an exemption for coatings produced
in low volumes.
In general, commenters in favor of the exemption pointed out that
it would mitigate the impact of the rule on small manufacturers for
which costs of reformulation would be more significant, and would
prevent the elimination of specialty products for niche markets that
could not easily be reformulated. Commenters opposed to the concept of
a low-volume exemption generally argued that it would create a loophole
allowing continued manufacture of noncompliant coatings and that in the
aggregate such emissions would be significant.
The EPA considered these comments and concluded that some type of
exemption is needed to help ensure the continued availability of niche
products, to mitigate potential impacts on small manufacturers, and to
enhance the economic feasibility of the rule. The exemption in the
final rule is based on VOC tonnage rather than on production volume,
the concept presented at proposal. This approach continues to
accommodate the needs of small manufacturers, niche markets, and
specialty products, as did the proposed low-volume exemptions, but it
more effectively limits the VOC emissions resulting from the exemption
in response to comments received on the proposal.
Under the tonnage exemption, each manufacturer can exempt a volume
of coatings that contains no more than a specified total mass of VOC
for all coatings included in the exemption (see table 2 in section
II.B, Summary of Standards). The EPA has designed the tonnage limits to
exempt no more than
[[Page 48865]]
1.5 to 2 percent of the total expected emission reductions from all
architectural coatings. In addition, the EPA has structured the tonnage
exemption to decrease over time, thereby decreasing the aggregate VOC
emissions in a staggered fashion to provide additional compliance
flexibility. The EPA believes that it is appropriate to provide the
exemption in this manner for the dual purpose of preserving niche
products and of providing greater initial assistance to manufacturers
as they reformulate their products. The EPA believes that limiting the
exemption in this fashion will address the concerns of commenters who
viewed the low-volume exemption as a potential loophole that would
allow significant aggregate excess VOC emissions. The EPA expects that
the 9 Mg/yr (10 tpy) exemption that goes into effect in the third year
will help to preserve niche products and to provide adequate
flexibility for unforeseen future needs while effectively limiting
emissions due to the exemption. In addition, the EPA expects that the
initial tonnage exemption of 23 Mg (25 tons) for the time period from
September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000, will allow manufacturers
to exempt one to three 27,000 liter (7,100 gallon) product lines,
depending on the VOC content, thereby meeting the functional intent of
the originally proposed low-volume exemption.
The rule provides that the manufacturer or importer will calculate
emissions from exempt coatings by multiplying the total sales volume in
liters by the ``in the can'' VOC content of the coating in grams of VOC
per liter of coating, including any water or exempt compounds. The ``in
the can'' VOC content must include consideration of the maximum
thinning recommended by the manufacturer. The manufacturer or importer
may exempt any combination of different coatings as long as the total
VOC tonnage from these coatings does not exceed the limit for the
tonnage exemption. In addition, the manufacturer or importer may choose
to combine the exceedance fee provision and the VOC tonnage exemption
for one or more coatings.
For example, under this exemption, in the time period from
September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000, a manufacturer could
exempt 38,300 liters (10,000 gallons) of a 600 g/l [5 pounds per gallon
(lb/gal)] coating.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.012
Alternatively, a manufacturer could exempt 18,939 liters (5,000
gallons) of an 800 g/l (6.67 lb/gal) coating plus 13,731 liters (3,625
gallons) of a 550 g/l (4.58 lb/gal) coating.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.013
This exemption differs from the low-volume exemption in the
proposal preamble in three ways. First, the exemption is on a ``per
manufacturer'' basis rather than a ``per product'' basis. This change
was necessary due to the difficulty in defining a ``product'' and the
potential for abuse in designating products for exemption. Second, the
exemption level is based on megagrams of VOC rather than liters of
coating. Using VOC tonnage as the basis for the exemption places an
upper bound on the emission reductions that are lost through this
exemption while still accommodating the needs for which it was
intended. Third, the total quantity of the exemption reduces over time.
The EPA intends for the ratcheting down of the tonnage exemption over
time to encourage regulated entities using the exemption to continue to
reduce the VOC content of their coatings.
The EPA has concluded that the exemption, as structured in the
final rule, provides benefits in terms of flexibility, mitigation of
impacts for small manufacturers, and continuation of specialized niche
products that justify the EPA in foregoing the small percentage of
overall potential VOC reduction lost through the exemption.
Furthermore, the EPA has concluded that the creation of the tonnage
exemption is consistent with the EPA's explicit discretion and
authority to create the appropriate system or systems of regulation in
accordance with section 183(e)(4) of the Act.
H. Compliance Variance Provisions
In the proposed rule, the EPA included a variance provision
allowing manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings to
obtain additional time to comply. To obtain a variance, applicants
would have had to demonstrate that, for reasons beyond their reasonable
control, they could not comply with the requirements of the rule. The
EPA envisioned the proposed variance provision as a benefit primarily
for small businesses that might need extra time to develop new
technologies.
Several commenters addressed the variance provisions. Those who
supported the provisions noted that a variance would provide the needed
extra time to come into compliance. Those opposed to the variance
generally argued that it was not sufficiently protective of the
environment. In addition, even the commenters in favor of the variance
provision stated that the requirements for applying for a variance were
too burdensome, and that small businesses would be particularly
impacted by the burden associated with the application process. Many of
these commenters stated that exceedance fee provisions are a more
effective way to accommodate the need for compliance flexibility yet
still encourage reductions of VOC emissions.
Based upon the comments received, the EPA has not included the
variance provision in the final rule. It is evident to the EPA that a
variance process may not provide the intended compliance flexibility,
especially for small manufacturers. Even though the EPA intended the
proposed variance requirements to be the minimum necessary to justify
and approve a coating variance, the EPA recognizes that the
requirements may have been burdensome, particularly for small
manufacturers with limited or no regulatory compliance staff. It is
also possible that the variance provision could create an uneven
playing field because small businesses would not have the resources
needed to pursue
[[Page 48866]]
this option, thereby putting small businesses at a disadvantage
compared to large businesses.
Moreover, with the tonnage exemption and exceedance fee provisions
included in the final rule, the EPA has concluded that a compliance
date variance is not necessary. The EPA believes that these alternative
provisions provide even greater flexibility than the variance provision
and are less burdensome to regulated entities. Both of these compliance
options are automatically available to all regulated entities and,
therefore, do not involve complex application and approval processes.
These compliance options require only the limited recordkeeping and
reporting necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance.
The EPA anticipates that regulated entities will use the tonnage
exemption for low-volume products that require 2 to 3 years to
reformulate, or for extremely low-volume products that cannot be
reformulated in the foreseeable future. The exceedance fee option,
described more fully below, is also designed to give manufacturers
additional time to develop lower VOC technologies, which are already
used for similar coatings by other manufacturers, where necessary. This
compliance option allows regulated entities to continue to sell
coatings that exceed the VOC content limits, provided that they pay an
exceedance fee.
Need for Long-term, Universal Variance Procedure
Several commenters, including a national trade association,
recommended a provision in the rule for a long-term variance procedure
for new products. The commenters expressed concern that new and
innovative products may not fit into the coating categories that define
particular coating technologies, and will therefore, by default, be
subject to the VOC content limits for the general flat or nonflat
categories. Since the VOC content limits for these default categories
are among the most stringent, the commenters suggested provisions that
would allow manufacturers up to 5 years to develop and commercialize
innovative coating technologies under an extended variance. The
commenters argued that a long-term variance would protect manufacturers
who operate mainly in unique or niche markets and whose access to newer
technologies may be limited.
The EPA has determined that such a variance procedure is not
warranted, given the other provisions in the final architectural
coatings rule. The EPA has included compliance provisions in the final
rule that it believes will allow for the development of new technology.
The tonnage exemption and exceedance fee option in the final rule
create such additional compliance flexibility. In the event that
coatings manufacturers in the future develop specialized categories of
coatings for uses not now foreseeable, they could notify the EPA if
they believe a new coating category is needed. The EPA could then
assess the appropriateness of such a category.
I. Exceedance Fee Option
The EPA received a total of 27 comments on the exceedance fee
provision presented in the proposal preamble. About half of the
commenters supported this option and half opposed it. Under this
provision, manufacturers and importers have the option of paying a fee,
based on the extent to which a coating's VOC content exceeds the
applicable VOC content limit instead of meeting the limit listed in
table 1 of this subpart. The fee is calculated by: (1) determining the
difference between the coating's actual VOC content and the allowed VOC
content (in grams of VOC per liter of coating), (2) multiplying this
difference by the fee rate of $0.0028 per gram of excess VOC per liter
of coating, and (3) multiplying the resulting product by the volume of
the coating manufactured or imported during the reporting period. The
resulting dollar amount is owed by the manufacturer or importer as a
fee. After careful evaluation of all of the comments and discussions
with the Small Business Administration, the Administrator has decided
to include this compliance option in the final rule for several
reasons. First, the exceedance fee provision will provide transition
time over and above the tonnage exemption provision for those
manufacturers that may need additional time to obtain or develop lower
VOC technologies. The exceedance fee provision is significantly less
burdensome than the proposed compliance variance provision, which the
EPA has not retained in the final rule (see discussion in section V.H
of this preamble). Second, the exceedance fee provides long-term
flexibility and a less costly compliance option for manufacturers who
sell very low volume, specialty coatings where the cost of
reformulation may be prohibitive compared to the potential profit on
low volume products. Thus, these important specialty products will
continue to be available to consumers. Third, contrary to some comments
received, the EPA believes that the higher costs resulting from the
exceedance fees can encourage the development of innovative technology,
such as high-performance products with lower VOC content, thus reducing
VOC content to the limits in table 1 for many coatings.
With regard to some commenters' concerns about enforcement of the
exceedance fee, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
rule will ensure compliance with this option. The final rule requires
manufacturers and importers to maintain records and submit annual
reports to the EPA if they wish to exercise their option to use the
exceedance fee. Any violations of the recordkeeping and reporting or
any other requirements of the rule could result in enforcement actions
and the possibility of penalties.
There were various questions and opinions from several commenters
regarding the level of the fee. The EPA considered several factors in
setting the fee level. Specifically, the EPA has set the fee level so
that it would not be advantageous for most manufacturers and importers
merely to opt for the fee in lieu of reformulating large volume
products, which generate a disproportionately large share of emissions.
At the same time, the EPA has sought to set the fee at a level that
will provide flexibility for producers of small volume or specialty
products to keep products on the market. Clearly, these are competing
considerations, but they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the EIA
conducted by the EPA suggests that manufacturers of a large number of
coatings may opt for the fee (as a lower-cost compliance option to
reformulation or product withdrawal). However, the total sales volumes
of these products are uniformly small and, thus, their contribution to
total market output (and emission reductions) is relatively small. The
fee level also provides incentive for fee-paying firms to reduce VOC
content on the margin, as this will reduce the amount of fee they must
pay. The EPA has concluded that imposition of the fee is an appropriate
mechanism to encourage development of lower-VOC content products while
at the same time preserving specialty niche products and mitigating the
impact on small regulated entities. The level of the fee reflects the
EPA's attempt to balance the intent to encourage reformulation without
mandating that products be priced out of the market. The EPA believes
that this is consistent with its authority to use economic incentives
as part of the system of regulation as contemplated by section
183(e)(4) of the Act.
J. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
A number of commenters requested more flexible labeling
requirements to reduce the compliance burden. After
[[Page 48867]]
consideration of these comments, the EPA has determined that several
labeling requirements can be adjusted to provide more flexibility
without adversely affecting their usefulness. First, the EPA has
provided greater flexibility by allowing the date of manufacture or
date code to appear either on the bottom of cans or on the labels or
lids. Second, the EPA has clarified the VOC content labeling
requirement. These provisions allow manufacturers two options; they may
label the coating with either: (1) the VOC content of the coating,
including recommended thinning and considering fluctuations in VOC
content that may occur in the manufacturing process, or (2) the
applicable VOC content limit for the type coating as listed in table 1
of the rule. The second option is allowed only if the VOC content of
the coating does not exceed the applicable VOC content limit (i.e., it
is not available for coatings complying by exercise of the exceedance
fee or tonnage exemption provisions). Third, the final rule includes a
more flexible labeling requirement for industrial maintenance coatings.
Manufacturers may choose from the following phrases for labeling
industrial maintenance coatings:
(1) For industrial use only;
(2) For professional use only;
(3) Not for residential use;
(4) Not intended for residential use; or
(5) This product is intended for use under the following
condition(s): (list of each condition from the definition of industrial
maintenance coating that applies.)
The proposal preamble requested comment on the inclusion of
labeling requirements for coating coverage information and an
educational statement about the role of VOC emissions from coatings in
ozone formation. Based on comments received concerning coverage
information, the EPA determined that coating coverage is so variable,
depending on the coating and the substrate being coated, that the
information would be of minimal benefit. Upon consideration of comments
regarding the educational statement, the EPA concluded that an outreach
program would just as effectively educate consumers on the role of VOC
emissions in the formation of ozone and on the reasons why ground-level
ozone is undesirable. Thus, the final rule does not require the
proposed coverage information and educational statements.
K. Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Content
Four commenters expressed concern that Method 24 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) would not provide reliable results in certain
circumstances, such as for waterborne coatings, and requested that the
EPA allow the use of alternative tests in lieu of Method 24. The
requests included methods to test for acetone content, acid content,
water content, and for testing coatings that cure via chemical
reactions that are quenched by the dilution solvent used in Method 24.
Two commenters also requested that the EPA accept compliance
demonstrations based on theoretical formula calculations or formula
batch card loading information and documentation.
The EPA believes that Method 24 provides consistent, reliable
results when determining the VOC content of architectural coatings.
Specifically regarding concerns about Method 24's reliability for
determining the VOC content of waterborne coatings, the EPA believes
that Method 24 is the best currently available compliance method for
low-VOC solvent content (high water content or waterborne) coatings.
For waterborne coatings, VOC content is determined indirectly using
methods that determine nonvolatile matter content and water content.
The VOC content is assumed to be what is unaccounted for by these two
fractions. The EPA acknowledges that the inherent imprecision of
indirectly determining the VOC content of such coatings by this method
necessitates an adjustment of the analytical results. Such adjustments
must be based on confidence limits calculated from the precision
statement established for Method 24. The precision adjustment procedure
is incorporated in Method 24. Therefore, the final rule specifies that
Method 24 is to be used for determining the VOC content of coatings
subject to the rule. However, in response to comments received and
consistent with other coating regulations established by the EPA in the
past, the final rule does provide that other means may be used to
determine VOC content. Nevertheless, the rule also provides that the
Administrator may request at any time that the coating manufacturer or
importer conduct a Method 24 test for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance with the rule. If there are any inconsistencies between
Method 24 test results and other means of determining VOC content, the
Method 24 results will govern. The rule also provides an option for the
Administrator to approve, on a case-by-case basis, alternative methods
of determining the VOC content of coatings if they are demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction to provide results satisfactory for
determining compliance. Such alternative methods could include
procedures for testing for acetone, acid content, and water content,
procedures for coatings that are chemically-cured, and procedures for
using formulations and batch processing data for adjusting or
determining VOC content.
L. Compliance Date
At proposal, the EPA requested comment on the appropriate
compliance deadline for the rule. Commenters expressed a range of
opinions regarding the appropriate compliance date. Commenters who
supported a compliance period of up to 12 months stated that this
amount of time was necessary to adjust formulations, reprint labels,
adjust inventories, use up existing label stock, and conduct research
and development. Some commenters stated that the compliance period
should be greater than 1 year to allow adequate time for developing,
performance testing, and marketing new products. Some State Agencies
requested no further delay in the compliance date, since States are
depending upon the architectural coatings rule for VOC reduction credit
under their SIP. The latter commenters stated that extending the
compliance date would have an adverse impact on the environment, would
lead to additional State regulations, and is unnecessary given the
current state of technology.
The EPA supports making the architectural coatings rule effective
and applicable as quickly as possible, but in a time frame within which
regulated entities may reasonably comply. The EPA believes that the 12-
month compliance period in the final rule allows the industry
appropriate time to achieve compliance with the rule. The EPA believes
that coating technologies currently exist to meet all of the rule's VOC
content limits. In limited cases where manufacturers or importers need
additional time to comply, the tonnage exemption and the exceedance fee
option already provide additional compliance flexibility and offset any
need for additional compliance time.
At proposal, the EPA requested comment on whether the final rule
should include a compliance extension for small manufacturers. Three-
quarters of the commenters providing comments on this provision were
against special treatment for small manufacturers. After careful
evaluation of the comments, the EPA has decided not to include a
compliance extension specifically restricted to small manufacturers.
Instead, the EPA has extended the compliance period for all
manufacturers
[[Page 48868]]
and importers to 12 months. The EPA has concluded that the information
provided by commenters demonstrates that the 12-month compliance period
allows adequate time for all regulated entities to comply. The EPA
believes that other mechanisms such as the tonnage exemption and the
exceedance fee will also help alleviate concerns regarding the
compliance period for small entities.
M. Cost/Economic Impacts
At proposal, the EPA solicited comment regarding the size and
nature of reformulation costs to gauge the reasonableness of the
estimate used in the EPA's EIA. The estimate the EPA used at proposal
($250,000 per product reformulation) was based on an estimate presented
to the Regulatory Negotiation Committee in 1993 (Docket# II-E-52). The
EPA received several public comments in response to this request and
categorized the estimates provided based on the following dimensions:
technical staff training, prioritization of products needing
reformulation, survey of available materials, reformulation to desired
properties, performance tests, field tests, marketing costs, production
costs (labels), sales training, and executive expenses. Eleven of the
comments received provided comparable information for gauging
reformulation costs per product. Other comments provided less complete
information that the EPA has taken into account, but did not include
the specific information necessary to assess the reasonableness of the
EPA's estimate. The EPA combined the estimates from these eleven
comments with the original cost estimate and found that reformulation
cost per product ranged in value from $576 to $272,000 (1991 dollars),
with a mean value of approximately $87,000. This gives an indication
that the EPA's estimate at proposal significantly overstated the
average cost to reformulate a product. Because the mean value from
these comments represents a wide variety of conditions for
reformulation (in comparison to the one scenario described to the
Regulatory Negotiation Committee), the EPA revised the EIA using
$87,000 as the average cost to reformulate a product. Appendix B of the
EIA and the architectural coatings BID provides a full discussion of
the review of these cost estimates.
Several commenters indicated that they thought that the estimate of
total social cost was too low because the EPA underestimated or omitted
several cost factors. Some of the factors cited by commenters that
costs are underestimated are listed below:
(1) The estimate did not consider every reformulation such as the
recalibration and reformulation of every color in a tint base system
when the base is reformulated,
(2) The survey used to estimate costs excluded 400 small paint
manufacturing companies,
(3) Only the costs of laboratory personnel are included in the
estimate,
(4) The estimate did not consider the cost of foregone new product
development when expending scarce technical effort to reformulate
existing products, and
(5) Aggregation of 50 product categories into 13 market segments
reduces the impact presented.
Commenters also cited several cost categories that potentially were
omitted from the total cost estimate, including:
(6) Costs for preparing product literature, including material
safety data sheets, sales aids, color brochures, and technical data
bulletins;
(7) Costs for manufacturer education;
(8) Costs to consumers from increased surface preparation,
application, and drying time;
(9) Costs associated with warranty claims and complaints about poor
performance of compliant coatings;
(10) Litigation costs due to increased safety hazards from using
acetone formulations;
(11) Increased costs to retailers, contractors, and other
consumers;
(12) Additional job losses in the paint industry and the
socioeconomic impact on low income workers; and
(13) Impacts of product bans on the nation.
Two of these commenters (a manufacturer and its legal counsel)
stated that if the EPA included all cost factors in the total cost
estimate, then the impacts of the rule would exceed $100 million and
would necessitate additional analyses under Executive Order 12866 and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Some commenters also believed that
the method of calculating the national cost was flawed in that costs
are calculated on an annualized basis. A commenter also stated that
expressing the cost in 1991 dollars did not represent real costs today
and that assuming an interest rate of 7 percent was not a valid
assumption for small businesses.
The EPA has carefully considered the comments regarding the
economic impact of the rule, especially in light of the EPA's
overestimate of the costs of reformulation in the proposal. The EPA
believes the total social cost estimate provided at proposal was
significantly above the actual cost of the regulation because of
several conservative assumptions that were adopted in the analysis, and
the evidence that the per-product reformulation cost was nearly three
times greater than the average estimate obtained by public comments.
The method of calculating national cost for the final rule adheres
to the EPA policy and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance
(OMB Circular A-94). It is a well-established tenet of benefit-cost
analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis that benefits and costs need
to be placed on a time-consistent basis for direct comparison.
Therefore, the costs of the action must be computed on an annualized
basis through discounting to be time consistent with the annual stream
of emission reductions achieved. For the architectural coatings rule,
the costs of reformulation and its VOC reduction benefits occur in
different time periods. The reformulation of current noncompliant
products is a ``one-time event,'' but the emission reductions of the
new formula and the knowledge gained from developing the reformulation
continue over the life of the product, which is an infinite period of
time unless the product is permanently removed from the market. In
other words, once a formulation is developed to comply with the
regulation, manufacturers will have some knowledge to carry forward to
all future modifications of the product (i.e., if they adjust the
formula to improve certain attributes or characteristics of the
product). However, the EPA recognizes that a case can be made for
treating each product formula as having a finite service life,
requiring periodic reformulation. Under this alternative assumption,
the regulation is viewed as accelerating each product's next round of
reformulation, an event that would have occurred anyway. For example,
if a product is usually reformulated every 8 years, the rule's
implementation may cause a manufacturer to investigate the
reformulation 4 years earlier, thus accelerating the reformulation
schedule for all future years. In response to this issue, the EIA for
the final rule presents a calculation of annualized costs for both a
finite and an infinite product life. Because the finite product life
results in a higher annualized value, the EPA uses this estimate for
the economic analysis of the final rule to produce a conservative
estimate of impacts associated with the rule.
Also, because the survey of architectural coating producers was
conducted in 1992 with information on products through the end of 1991,
the EPA has set 1991 as the baseline year for the analysis. All market
data are in 1991 dollars, and so for the purpose of
[[Page 48869]]
modeling, the costs are expressed in 1991 dollars. However, in response
to comments, values for the final rule are expressed in both 1991 (the
base year of analysis) and 1996 dollars. The EPA's conclusions
regarding the impacts of the final rule are the same, whether expressed
in 1991 or 1996 dollars.
In addition, OMB (OMB Circular A-94) stipulates that the discount
rate used for economic analyses of Federal regulations is 7 percent.
This is based on an assessment of a wide range of private and public
investment returns. The 7-percent rate is a real discount rate
(adjusting out inflation). In contrast, the market interest rates paid
by firms are in nominal terms (i.e., they include a component for
inflation). If inflation is 3 percent, then a real rate of 7 percent is
equivalent to a nominal rate of 10 percent. All dollar values in the
economic analysis are expressed in real terms, thus the discount rate
used is a real discount rate.
Using the stated method for calculating the per-product costs of
reformulation, the EPA conducted an in-depth analysis of national cost
and economic impact to support both the proposed and final rules. More
specifically, the estimate of net social cost is based on the average
cost to reformulate products that exceed the limits set by the
standard. These costs are applied to specific products identified by
the survey. For these products, costs are applied to two-thirds of the
population of non-compliant products because one-third of these
products are similar enough in characteristics to other ``over-the-
limit'' products that a separate reformulation effort is not likely to
be necessary. Although the survey was unable to capture all products
produced by small businesses as one commenter states, the EPA assumed
(for an upper bound estimate) that all product volume in the non-survey
population was produced by small businesses. Thus, costs are
extrapolated to the nation using conservative assumptions of the total
number of products requiring reformulation nationally. The analysis
then considers influences in a competitive market on product price and
output, along with the consideration of lower-cost compliance options
such as the exceedance fee provision or product withdrawal from the
market. The analysis not only measures the cost to producers that must
comply with the regulation, but also to all consumers impacted by the
changes in the market resulting from the regulation. The analysis also
identifies gains in revenues to producers that are not constrained by
the rule (thus, not incurring costs), but who gain an advantage of
higher market prices for their products. Thus, the EPA believes that
the analysis reasonably captures all capital and social costs for
surveyed as well as non-surveyed products.
The original product reformulation cost estimate included several
components beyond the cost of the laboratory personnel, which are
itemized in the EIA. Although some of the items listed by commenters as
improperly omitted may not have been included in the per-product
reformulation cost estimate at proposal, several of the estimates from
public comments that were used for the final rule included these
components, and therefore, they are included in the estimate used for
the final rule. The EPA also considered the influence (positive and
negative) of other factors that are not possible to quantify, and
presented these biases in a table of the EIA at proposal and for the
final rule. Most of the biases are variable and case specific. For
example, product quality changes were found to have both positive and
negative effects on cost depending on the product. The EPA found no
link between product quality and VOC content since quality, high-
performing products are available in a wide range of VOC content levels
in many product categories. Given this finding, the EPA does not
consider warranty claims and complaints for poor performance to be
typical or quantifiable for a reformulated product. The EPA also found
examples of increased and decreased time utilized for surface
preparation, application, and drying of compliant coatings. The use of
acetone formulations is also not considered a necessity to comply with
the rule since there are other raw material substitutes available to
manufacturers. Thus, incurring increased safety hazards by choosing an
acetone formulation is a decision that should be made by a manufacturer
based on benefit/cost considerations, rather than as a result of the
rule. Other categories of influence on the cost estimate are also
discussed qualitatively in the EIA.
The cost of foregone new product development is an aspect of
opportunity cost that is implicitly included in the EPA's estimate of
economic impacts. The amortized cost of reformulation reflects both the
payment of principal and the cost of capital. The cost of capital
directly reflects the value of opportunities foregone by investing
funds in a particular activity, in this case, reformulation. Thus, if
investing in reformulation diverts funds from investing in other
product enhancements, the foregone value of those investments is
captured in the discount rate used in the analysis.
The aggregation of 50 categories into 13 market segments is the
result of cross-referencing the emissions inventory data from the
industry survey with the coding system set by the Census of
Manufacturers, a large source of economic data. The methodology to link
survey categories with the Census data is described in an appendix to
the EIA. The EPA's objective was to specify as many market categories
as the data would allow. Using this method, the largest possible number
of meaningful market categories was 13. The aggregation process
presents an appropriate way to analyze the cost and economic impacts
and does not in any way diminish the estimates of the absolute impact
of the regulation. However, the aggregation process may make it
difficult to detect relatively large impacts within one subgroup of a
market category, if these impacts are offset by relatively small
impacts in other subgroups of that market. In other words, a product
may be more likely to be withdrawn from the market than is indicated in
the 13 market segments of the analysis since multiple product niches
would be lumped within the same market segment. On the other hand, this
aggregation may increase the estimated effect on manufacturers by over-
stating the degree to which products within the market segment can
substitute for products affected by the regulation.
While the EPA did not directly measure impacts on the retailing
sector, contractors, and other consumers, the indirect impacts to these
entities and other users of coatings products are captured in the
market analysis by the estimated change in ``consumer surplus,'' along
with all other downstream effects beyond the manufacturer. Consumer
surplus measures the distribution of the burden of the regulation to
all consumers. Since the impact on consumers calculated for proposal
was less than one-third of the manufacturers' burden, and contractors
and retailers are a small subset of this effect, the EPA saw no
indication of a need for an in-depth analysis of secondary (indirect)
impacts.
It should be recognized that retail outlets have the ability to
substitute between compliant and noncompliant coatings offered for
sale. While the EPA projects the number of withdrawn products to be
small, if a manufacturer does choose to discontinue a product,
retailers will presumably replace this product with other compliant
products in that category. Thus, although foregone profits are ``lost''
for the
[[Page 48870]]
manufacturer withdrawing a product, the retailer offsets any lost
profits from selling the withdrawn product with profits obtained by
selling substitutes within that category. As indicated above, the
number and volume of product withdrawals is projected to be quite small
(less than 1-percent nationally), thus suggesting retailing effects, if
they exist at all, are also likely to be quite small.
The job loss and other substantial economic impacts that are
referred to by a commenter are the result of assuming that every
reformulation required by the standards is not feasible, thus the
products would be removed from the market causing manufacturers,
contractors, retailers, and other consumers to be economically
impacted. Because there are a very limited number of products that are
expected to be withdrawn from the market, most products will be
reformulated or produced with current formulations (with manufacturers
using the tonnage exemption provision or paying a fee for emissions in
excess of the standards).
Likewise, this regulatory action cannot be considered a ``product
ban'' because the EPA believes that it is technologically feasible to
reformulate all product categories to meet the standards. The expected
level of product withdrawal is calculated based upon the aggregate
impact on numerous varieties of products across 13 different market
segments, so it is unlikely to eliminate (or ban) an entire product
category. In addition, the rule contains limits for 61 categories of
products, many of which were created to preserve specialty, niche
market sectors within the industry. Also, the tonnage exemption and
exceedance fee provisions in the rule are expected to provide further
compliance flexibility which will allow manufacturers to maintain
product lines with VOC contents that exceed the applicable VOC content
limits in appropriate circumstances.
In conclusion, based on the data and information provided to the
EPA prior to proposal and through public comments, the revised national
annualized cost estimate of the final rule of $25.6 million in 1991
dollars (or $29 million in 1996 dollars) is representative of all costs
to producers and consumers. This cost and its effect on the industry do
not meet the minimum criteria set forth by Executive Order 12866 or the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to require additional analyses, as some
commenters have suggested.
N. Small Business Issues
The EPA received several comments that small businesses would be
disproportionately impacted by the regulation because: (1) they
manufacture products with higher VOC content in comparison to the large
companies; (2) due to the lack of resources, it would take longer for
small firms to reformulate all affected products; and (3) the rule
would discourage niche market products that support many regional and
local manufacturers. Some commenters also claimed that the proposed
regulation provided a competitive advantage to large national and
international companies because a uniform national rule simplifies
marketing, production, and compliance activities of these firms.
During development of the rule, the EPA was aware of the above
concerns of small manufacturers and designed the architectural coatings
rule to minimize any potential adverse impacts on small manufacturers.
In fact, special consideration was given to economic feasibility of VOC
levels for coating categories where small manufacturers have a
disproportionate presence. The small entity analysis confirmed that
small producers that were included in the survey of manufacturers do
tend to produce higher VOC content products (75 percent higher than the
average of all surveyed manufacturers), partly because of a
specialization of products and partly because of choice of technology.
They produced 20 percent of the number of products in the survey, but
only account for 4 percent of total volume of coatings produced, and 4
percent of total revenue of surveyed manufacturers. Thus, the revenues
and production levels are generally lower than the average of all
manufacturers. Because the costs to reformulate are fixed for all
levels of production, the costs to reformulate the products that exceed
the VOC content limits have the potential to comprise a greater share
of baseline costs and revenues for small producers, which gives some
indication that a disproportionate impact on small businesses could
occur if reformulation were the only compliance option available. The
EPA considered this finding and has taken several steps in the final
rule to mitigate this impact, provide flexibility and additional
compliance time, and preserve niche markets, including:
The creation of new product categories where warranted,
An increased compliance time (12 months),
A tonnage exemption provision, and
An exceedance fee provision.
All of these provisions were considered in part to address niche
markets and small business burdens; however, the provisions will be
available to all producers regardless of size. The EPA's analysis of
the impacts of the final rule shows that small businesses are likely to
utilize these provisions and that the impact on a typical small firm is
reduced without significant deterioration of the rule's effectiveness
(i.e., the foregone emission reductions are limited). See section VI.E
of this preamble for a summary of findings from the analysis.
The EPA disagrees that the proposed architectural coatings rule
favors larger businesses to the detriment of smaller businesses. As the
EIA indicates, estimated market effects from the architectural coatings
rule are relatively slight. Approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of
industry product volume is projected to withdraw from the market, and
price effects in each market are expected to range from no effect to an
increase of less than 2 cents per liter, which is still less than a 1-
percent increase of the baseline price. The expected level of product
withdrawal discussed above is based upon the aggregate of numerous
varieties of products across 13 different market segments, so it is
unlikely to eliminate an entire product category. Compared to other
industries, the coatings industry is highly competitive due to the
numerous manufacturers in the industry. Therefore, a relatively small
product withdrawal effect on a very competitive industry suggests that
significant degradation of market competition is unlikely.
The EPA also does not agree that a uniform national regulation
would have negative implications for competition with respect to
antitrust laws and would reduce market efficiency. In fact, the
existence of nonuniform standards across States tends to favor one
sector of the industry (local manufacturers) at the expense of another
(non-local manufacturers), thereby limiting competition in those
markets. Some public commenters supported a national rule because they
believe nonuniform standards harmed small manufacturers. As one
commenter testified at the public hearing, small companies lack the
resources to deal with a large number of different State regulations
and labeling requirements and a regulatory climate that changes
frequently. Another commenter pointed out that these conditions hinder
small companies' ability to plan for new products, production,
expansion, and marketing. All of these activities require the
[[Page 48871]]
investment of time and money that can easily be expended if a county,
district, or State implements a new VOC rule. The EPA considers a
national VOC rule an important element in promoting consistency among
architectural coating standards. The EPA also recognizes that a
national rule for architectural coatings sets minimum national
requirements, and that some States may need to adopt requirements for
architectural coatings more stringent than those in this rule.
The EPA also received comments on the definition of a small entity
that the EPA adopted for the regulatory flexibility analysis. One
commenter supported the definition, while several others argued that
the definition was too restrictive and suggested it be revised to
include more firms (i.e., firms with architectural coatings sales
between $20 and $30 million, or firms with less than $50 million, or
firms with less than $100 million in sales). Because the coating
manufacturing industry is not labor-intensive, a revenue value cut-off
rather than a number-of-employees cut-off appeared to be a better
measure to reflect the ability of a manufacturer to devote time as well
as research and development resources to meet regulatory requirements.
Based on input from stakeholders during the regulatory negotiation
process (II-E-62), the EPA has defined small manufacturers as those
having less than $10 million in annual architectural coating sales and
less than $50 million in total annual sales from all products. Using
this definition, between 70 and 85 percent of the architectural
coatings industry would be classified as small. This definition does
not change the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA); it
is used for analysis purposes only. If the definition were changed to
include more firms at sales levels greater than $10 million, the
impacts on this sector of the industry may appear lower on average
because the impacts on a company with sales around $30 million may
offset impacts on a $5 million company. In such a case, the EPA may
have been less likely to consider special provisions such as the
exceedance fee or tonnage exemption. The EPA believes the current
definition is representative of the industry and has not revised it for
the final rule.
O. Cost-Effectiveness
In the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 32735, June 25, 1996),
the EPA solicited comments on alternative approaches to the cost-
effectiveness calculation for the proposed rule. As distinct from EPA's
consideration of cost in the BAC analysis, the discussion in this
section did not form a basis for EPA's selection of BAC for the
categories of products regulated by the rule.
Cost-effectiveness is a measure used to compare alternative
strategies for reducing pollutant emissions, or to provide a comparison
of a new strategy with historical strategies. The EPA's established
method of calculating the cost-effectiveness of a rule with nationwide
applicability is to divide the total cost of the rule by total emission
reductions. At proposal, the EPA requested comment on two alternative
ways of calculating cost-effectiveness for the architectural coatings
rule: (1) cost-effectiveness considering total emission reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas only, and (2) cost-effectiveness considering
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas during the ozone
season only.
Before discussing the comments received on this cost-effectiveness
methodology issue, it is important to note that the provisions and
rationale for today's rule are not dependent upon the disposition of
this issue. The EPA nonetheless took comment on the issue because this
rule was among the first to be proposed under section 183(e) of the Act
and presented an opportunity to receive public input early in the
program.
In regard to cost-effectiveness methodologies, the EPA received
comments from three commenters, all of whom favored the EPA's
traditional measure of cost-effectiveness. One commenter stated that it
is important to characterize cost-effectiveness in a consistent manner
so that various control strategies can be compared on equal footing and
that calculating cost-effectiveness based solely on nonattainment areas
unfairly biases the calculation by ignoring the benefit of reducing the
transport of ozone and its precursors. Another commenter advised the
EPA to maintain the traditional measure since it is commonly used and
will continue to provide meaningful comparisons. The latter commenter
opposed more narrow measures of cost-effectiveness, such as exclusively
measuring the effect on ozone concentrations or VOC reductions in ozone
nonattainment areas only. The third commenter considered cost-
effectiveness based on VOC reductions solely in ozone nonattainment
areas to be impractical, because the manufacturer has little control
over where coatings will be used. Such control would necessitate
additional recordkeeping to track intended and actual locations of
product use.
After considering these comments, the EPA does not plan to adopt
these alternative approaches to calculating cost-effectiveness for
rules with nationwide control requirements, for reasons that are
presented below.
One issue raised by the comments is whether the EPA's traditional
measure creates a bias against strategies that apply in a limited
geographic area (e.g., in nonattainment areas) relative to nationwide
strategies, or against seasonal strategies relative to year-round
strategies. This issue would arise if the EPA used cost-effectiveness
figures to compare the desirability of these dissimilar types of
strategies. In fact, the EPA did not use cost-effectiveness estimates
in this way in developing the architectural coatings rule. In the case
of the architectural coatings rule, the EPA considered applying
restrictions to architectural coatings only in nonattainment areas
(either by rule or through a CTG). The EPA believes that such
geographically targeted restrictions for these nationally distributed
architectural coatings would pose substantial implementation
difficulties for government and would impose substantial compliance
burdens on a large number of regulated entities. The EPA also believes
that such geographically targeted restrictions for these nationally
distributed products would be less effective at reducing emissions than
a national rule (see section V.A of this preamble for further
discussion). Because the EPA determined that a strategy applicable only
to nonattainment areas would be less desirable than a national rule for
architectural coatings, the EPA did not see a need to invest resources
to pursue that strategy and calculate its cost-effectiveness.
The EPA considered whether use of one of the alternative cost-
effectiveness methodologies would enable the EPA to make valid cost-
effectiveness comparisons between nationwide and targeted geographic
strategies, or year-round and seasonal strategies, for reducing ozone
pollution. The EPA has not chosen these alternatives because it has the
following concerns about the two alternative approaches:
First, VOC emission reductions have benefits other than reducing
ozone levels in nonattainment areas. As a result, the EPA believes the
cost-effectiveness calculation for a nationwide, year-round rule should
not exclude VOC emission reductions in attainment areas or outside the
ozone season. The EPA recognizes that a primary objective of section
183(e) of the Act is to reduce VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment
areas. However, as
[[Page 48872]]
previously explained, in the development of the architectural coatings
rule, the EPA believes that the best policy alternative is to implement
a nationwide rule. Therefore, emission reductions from this rule will
not only be realized in ozone nonattainment areas, but also in all
other parts of the country in which architectural coatings are
distributed and consumed.
In general, the benefits of VOC reductions in ozone attainment
areas include reductions in emissions of VOC air toxics, reductions in
the contribution from VOC emissions to the formation of fine
particulate matter, and reductions in damage to agricultural crops,
forests, and ecosystems from ozone exposure. Emission reductions in
attainment areas help to maintain clean air as the economy grows and
new pollution sources come into existence. Also, ozone health benefits
can result from reductions in attainment areas, although the most
certain health effects from ozone exposure below the NAAQS appear to be
both transient and reversible. The closure letter from the Clean Air
Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) for the recent review of the ozone
NAAQS states that there is no apparent threshold for biological
responses to ozone exposure [See U.S. EPA; Review of NAAQS for Ozone,
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper; document number: EPA-452\R-
96-007].
Second, under either alternative approach, emission reductions in
ozone attainment areas would not be included in the calculation. This
appears to imply that emissions reductions in attainment areas do not
contribute to cleaner air in nonattainment areas. VOC sources in
regions adjacent to nonattainment areas may contribute to ozone levels
in nonattainment areas. As a result, a cost-effectiveness comparison
based on the alternative approaches sometimes could create a bias
against a nationwide rule relative to a strategy that applies in
nonattainment areas only.
In light of the transport issue, it has been suggested that the EPA
apply a weighting factor to account for differences in the extent to
which emissions inside and outside nonattainment areas contribute to
ozone formation in nonattainment areas. The EPA is concerned that in
order to calculate cost-effectiveness using this concept, the EPA would
have to conduct extensive and costly air quality modeling to estimate
ozone reductions resulting from each candidate control strategy and
that this would require extensive data on the location of emissions.
Such detailed analysis is appropriate for some policy decisions, but
not for all. As a result, the EPA is skeptical that this weighting
approach would represent a generally useful analytical tool for
decision making.
The EPA, of course, agrees that differences in the location and
timing of emission reductions are a significant consideration in
choosing among alternative strategies. The extent of ozone reductions
and other benefits resulting from VOC emission reductions varies,
partly based on location and season. In considering nationwide vs.
geographically targeted controls, and year-round vs. seasonal controls,
the EPA considers available information on the effectiveness of those
strategies in reducing ozone--as well as other health and environmental
considerations, economic considerations, and other relevant factors--in
making a holistic assessment of which strategy is most desirable from
an overall public policy standpoint.
There are instances where the EPA does provide an estimate of cost-
effectiveness of a control strategy during the ozone season, i.e.,
generally, when a control strategy is feasible to apply on a seasonal
basis, or when limits are set on a seasonal basis. Although these
figures are useful for comparing different seasonal strategies, the EPA
does not plan to use cost-effectiveness figures for inappropriate
(i.e., apple to orange) comparisons between seasonal and year-round
strategies for the 183(e) program for the reasons presented above. In
regard to today's rule, the EPA notes that the nature of architectural
coatings emissions does not allow for control strategies that reduce
emissions only during the ozone season to be an objective for
consideration. One reason is that the shelf life and consumption rate
of architectural coatings varies greatly and one cannot predict that a
certain percentage of a product made with a specified formulation will
be consumed and, thus, result in VOC emitted during the ozone season.
Because the Agency has concluded that an ozone season-based approach is
not a viable control strategy for architectural coatings, the EPA did
not believe it was appropriate to develop a seasonal-based approach to
measuring cost-effectiveness for the architectural coatings rule.
P. Future Study and Future Limits
The EPA has determined to regulate architectural coatings based
upon the study and Report to Congress required by Section 183(e) of the
Act. For the reasons discussed in the separate final listing decision
published today in the Federal Register, the 183(e) study established
that the EPA should regulate architectural coatings to reduce VOC
emissions, as directed by the Act. The final rule's VOC content limits,
in combination with the exceedance fee and tonnage exemption
provisions, reflect the EPA's determination of BAC for architectural
coatings, based on the EPA's analysis of currently available
information on coating technologies. However, the EPA recognizes that
manufacturers are continuously developing new and innovative products
in response to competitive markets as well as to regulatory pressures.
The EPA has developed the final requirements for architectural coatings
largely from data for coatings manufactured in the early 1990s, and the
EPA believes, therefore, that VOC reductions beyond those reflected in
table 1 of the rule may be technologically and economically feasible in
the future. In the preamble for the proposed rule, the EPA discussed
the idea of a joint study with the industry to investigate the cost and
performance characteristics of coatings with VOC contents lower than
the promulgated limits and to assess the environmental and economic
impacts of requiring lower VOC contents. The EPA requested comments
concerning such an EPA/industry study and any performance, cost, or
reactivity considerations that should be included in such a study. The
EPA also requested information on coating categories where recent
progress in low-VOC resin systems has resulted in the introduction of
new low-VOC coatings into the market since 1990. In addition, the EPA
requested cost information and comments on the ability of coatings with
VOC content limits lower than the proposed levels to meet the
performance needs within the coating category.
A total of 27 commenters responded to the EPA's request for
comments, representing a wide variety of positions. The comments
generally addressed three issues: (1) the usefulness of the proposed
joint study, (2) how the EPA should conduct the study, and (3) the
merit of promulgating additional or more stringent standards for
architectural coatings.
Based on these comments, the EPA has concluded that an additional
study for this category may be warranted to determine the feasibility
of additional reductions in VOC limits. However, contrary to some
commenters' assertions, the EPA would not necessarily impose future
requirements as a result of any study. A study could indicate that
further regulation of architectural coatings is unwarranted.
[[Page 48873]]
The EPA appreciates the willingness expressed by many commenters to
participate in a joint study. The effectiveness of any study is highly
dependent on a spirit of openness and cooperation between all affected
parties. In order to determine the potential for useful results from a
second study, the EPA will solicit input from industry representatives
and other interested parties on the timing, scope, and content of the
study. Decisions concerning the additional study will be made on the
basis of this input.
Some commenters questioned the EPA's authority to engage in any
future regulatory initiatives involving architectural coatings. These
commenters did not identify any statutory language in section 183(e) of
the Act that supports this position. The EPA believes that section
183(e) explicitly authorizes the EPA to use ``any system or systems of
regulation'' that are appropriate to achieve the goals of the statute,
and the EPA's explicit directive is to require BAC. Nothing in section
183(e) explicitly or implicitly prohibits the EPA from updating or
amending the regulations in the future, if appropriate. The EPA has
striven to promulgate the appropriate regulations given the current
state of technology. Future innovation in technology may justify
reexamination of the regulations, and the EPA wishes to encourage such
innovation in order to achieve the objectives of section 183(e).
Q. Administrative Provisions
Since proposal, the EPA has added several new sections to the
regulation to aid in implementing the rule. These administrative
provisions do not add any new compliance requirements to the rule, and
pose no additional impacts on regulated entities. The EPA has added the
new requirements to provide consistent procedures for implementation.
The provisions that were added are as follows: (1) Addresses of the EPA
Regional Offices, (2) State Authority, (3) Circumvention, (4)
Incorporations by Reference, and (5) Availability of Information and
Confidentiality.
The section on addresses specifies the mailing addresses of the EPA
Regional Offices for the submittal of required reports. The States and
territories served by the various Regional Offices are listed in this
section as well. The appropriate Regional Office for purposes of
reporting would be that Regional Office which serves the State or
territory in which the regulated entity's corporate headquarters are
physically located.
The section on State authority clarifies that this rule in no way
prevents States from adopting more stringent regulations. The section
on circumvention prohibits regulated entities from doing anything to
conceal what would otherwise be noncompliance, by such means as
falsifying records of product formulation or VOC content. The section
on incorporations by reference includes as part of the rule the ASTM
methods and technical standards of the American Architectural
Manufacturer's Association that are cited by reference. Finally, the
section on availability of information and confidentiality clarifies
the type of information that is available to the public, and provides
for the confidential handling of any proprietary information that may
be submitted to the EPA in response to the rule.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rule. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the statement of
basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated standards and the EPA
responses to significant comments, the contents of the docket will
serve as the record in case of judicial review [see 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(7)(A)].
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1750.02) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information collections required under this rule are needed as
part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. The information
will be used by the EPA to identify the regulated entities subject to
the rule and to ensure their compliance with the rule. The
recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirements are mandatory and
are being established under sections 114 and 183(e) of the Act. All
information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality
is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in
Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B-Confidentiality of Information
(see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, as amended by: 43
FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR
17674, March 23, 1979).
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
information collection averaged over the first 3 years is estimated to
be 65,851 hours per year. The total annualized recordkeeping and
reporting costs for this rule are estimated to be $2,452,683. This is
the estimated burden for the estimated 500 respondents (i.e.,
architectural coating manufacturers).
The average estimated burden, per respondent, is 132 hours per
year. The total reporting and recordkeeping burden for an individual
respondent will vary depending on the compliance option chosen.
Respondents meeting the VOC content limits will have the lowest
reporting and recordkeeping burden. Manufacturers and importers that
choose the option of calculating an ``adjusted-VOC content'' (for
recycled coatings), paying an exceedance fee, or exercising the tonnage
exemption will have a higher reporting and recordkeeping burden. The
final rule requires an initial one-time notification from each
respondent. Respondents whose coating products have a VOC content that
is less than or equal to the VOC content limits have no periodic
reporting requirements. Respondents using the recycled coatings
provision must keep records and submit annual reports. Respondents
taking advantage of the tonnage exemption must file annual reports and
must maintain records for the coatings being claimed under the
exemption. Respondents paying an exceedance fee must submit reports on
an annual basis. These manufacturers must also keep records for each
coating product on which fees are paid.
Burden in this context means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose,
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2) develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; (3) adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
[[Page 48874]]
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection
of information; (5) search data sources; (6) complete and review the
collection of information; and (7) transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Send comments on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Comments are requested within October 13, 1998. Include the ICR number
in any correspondence.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the EPA has
determined that this final rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
under criterion (4) above, based on the novel use of economic
incentives (an exceedance fee) for this industry. Therefore, the EPA
submitted this action to OMB for review. Any changes made in response
to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public
record.
D. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. This
Executive Order requires agencies to assess the effects of regulations
that are not required by statute and that create mandates upon State,
local, or tribal governments. In compliance with Executive Order 12875,
the EPA has involved State and local governments in the development of
this rule. State and local air pollution control agencies participated
in the regulatory negotiation and have also submitted comments after
proposal for consideration in developing the final rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires
the EPA to give special consideration to the effect of Federal
regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory options that
might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is required to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis, including consideration of regulatory
options for reducing any significant impacts, unless the EPA determines
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The EPA prepared analyses to support both the proposed and final
rules to meet the requirements of the RFA as modified by the SBREFA.
The EPA undertook these analyses because of the large presence of small
entities in the architectural coatings industry and because the EIA
indicated that there could be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if mitigating regulatory options
were not adopted for the rule. After evaluating public comment on the
proposed mitigating options, the EPA made a number of changes to the
proposed rule to further mitigate the rule's small business impacts. As
a result, the EPA believes that it is highly unlikely that the rule
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. However, in light of the EPA's inability to quantify
the effect of all of the mitigating provisions included in the rule,
the EPA has elected to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis and to
prepare a SBREFA compliance guide to eliminate any potential dispute
about whether the EPA has fulfilled SBREFA requirements. The EPA
expects to complete the compliance guide by the end of 1998.
The analysis supporting the proposed rule was published in the
report titled, ``Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
Air Pollution Regulations: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings,'' (June 1996). For the purpose of the analysis, the EPA
considered small manufacturers to be firms with less than $10 million
of total gross annual revenues from the sale of architectural coatings
and less than $50 million in total gross annual revenues from all
products. The EPA proposed this definition of small entity for the
reasons stated in the September 3, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR 46411)
and has determined that this definition is appropriate. The Small
Business Administration has concurred on this definition of small
entity.
Using this definition, one-third of the 116 firms for which the EPA
has survey data are classified as small. There are approximately 500
total manufacturers. Since the EPA does not have data to indicate the
total number of small firms producing architectural coatings, the EPA
assumes as a conservative estimate that the unsurveyed manufacturer
population (i.e., the remaining 384 manufacturers) are all small, and
consequently, all product volume not captured by the 116 manufacturers
surveyed is manufactured by small firms. Using this assumption, the EPA
conducted an analysis that assumed 84 percent of the estimated 500
architectural coating producers, i.e., 420 firms, are small entities.
Based on an analysis of the survey data at proposal, the EPA
recognized the fact that small businesses tend to produce products in
specialized or niche markets and also to produce products that tend to
have higher than industry-average VOC contents within less specialized
markets. In addition, small manufacturers' revenue and production
levels are generally lower than the average for all manufacturers. One
benefit of their smaller production levels is that small manufacturers
have a greater ability to adjust quickly to changes in markets.
However, because the costs to reformulate are fixed for all levels of
production, and small manufacturers have lower than average production
levels, the costs for small manufacturers to reformulate represents a
greater share of baseline costs and revenues. Without any rule
provisions designed to mitigate impacts on small
[[Page 48875]]
manufacturers' niche markets and smaller production levels, there is
some indication that a disproportionate impact on small businesses
could occur.
At proposal, the EPA included categories and limits to preserve
niche product markets. In addition, to evaluate whether further steps
were still needed to accommodate niche market coatings, the EPA
requested that commenters identify any additional specialty coatings
which would not comply with VOC content requirements. The EPA also
requested comment on whether to include an ``exceedance fee'' which
would allow companies the option of paying a fee, based on the amount
that VOC content limits are exceeded, instead of achieving the limit.
In addition, the EPA requested comment on the concept of a low volume
cut-off, under which a coating may be exempt from regulation. The
analysis prepared to support the final rule builds upon the analysis
performed for the proposal and takes into consideration compliance
options the EPA has added to the final rule.
Due to confidentiality considerations associated with the survey
data provided by the industry trade association, the EPA could not
derive compliance cost as a percentage of revenues for each small
manufacturer included in the survey population. This is because the
aggregated information provided to the EPA did not have sales and VOC
content information linked to any particular small manufacturer. The
data compiled all responses for small manufacturers without any
indication of firm name. Therefore, individual product VOC content
information is available, and total revenues of all firms responding to
the survey as a small business is available, but no method exists for
the EPA to connect each response to an individual firm for a
calculation of actual firm-level cost-to-revenues ratios. Absent exact
information for each firm, the EPA performed the analysis based upon an
average small business, using reasonable assumptions based upon the
available data. In lieu of firm-level measures, the analysis presents
an average cost/revenue ratio for a typical small firm based on the
survey data.
The analysis has several other limitations. Although the EPA
included specialty niche market categories in the rule, based on the
data available to the EPA, there was no way to account for the extent
to which these additional categories mitigated impacts. For example,
the EPA's proposal included the following categories: ``impacted
immersion coatings'', ``flow coatings'', and ``nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquer and surface coatings'' which likely would have been
reported in the survey under the broader ``industrial maintenance''
category. The analysis would likely overestimate impacts on some of the
markets represented in the survey due to the inability to account for
the subset niche markets within these surveyed categories for which the
EPA created additional categories. Additionally, the EPA's analysis
assumes that manufacturers bear the full cost of each reformulation.
Since the VOC content limits in the rule reflect available resin
technologies, the EPA expects that the cost to comply for those
manufacturers needing to reformulate their higher VOC content coatings
will be partially reduced through the assistance of resin
manufacturers/suppliers. Upon request, most resin suppliers are willing
to share information and sample low VOC content formulations with
interested paint manufacturers, both large and small. For this reason,
the analysis may overestimate the impact of reformulation costs. A
further consideration is that the EPA's analysis is based on 1990 data,
and there has been much technological progress in the past 8 years in
addition to new State regulations with requirements similar to the
EPA's rule (e.g., Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Oregon).
In response to public comments, the EPA added 7 coating categories
and increased the VOC content limits for 4 coating categories, as well
as the exceedance fee provision and a provision which would enable each
manufacturer to claim as exempt a specified amount of VOC (known as the
tonnage exemption). The EPA also added an extended period of compliance
after promulgation to allow additional time for reformulations. The EPA
expects these provisions to mitigate rule impacts on small businesses'
low production volumes and to allow for the preservation of several
niche markets. However, based on the limited data available to the EPA,
only the mitigating impact of exceedance fees can be quantified.
The EPA first conducted the analysis without incorporating the
quantifiable mitigating impacts of compliance options available in the
final rule. The analysis shows that when reformulation is the only
option for compliance, the cost/revenue ratio is 2.5 percent on
average. When the alternative compliance options of the exceedance fee
or product withdrawal are considered, the ratio decreases to 2 percent.
This ratio would likely decrease further if the cost effects of the
additional niche product categories, use of the tonnage exemption, and
reduction in cost to reformulate due to resin supplier assistance could
be specifically quantified.
The analysis in the EIA suggests that a large percentage of small
firms will opt for one of the alternative compliance strategies in lieu
of reformulation. For some of the products listed in the survey as
produced by a small manufacturer, the EPA anticipates that it would be
less costly for a firm to utilize the exemption provision, pay the
exceedance fee, or withdraw a product (and forego profits on the
product) rather than to reformulate. Although the lack of data at the
firm level does not allow for an approximation of the use of the
exemption, the analysis suggests that 35.5 percent of the small
business products in the survey that exceed the standards will be
maintained at current VOC content levels through the payment of the
exceedance fee, 4 percent will be removed from the market, and 60.5
percent of the products will undergo reformulation. The availability of
the alternative compliance strategies reduces the cost to small
manufacturers by 23 percent (or more if the effect of the tonnage
exemption and the portion of reformulation cost borne by resin
manufacturers/suppliers could be quantified).
Based on the findings of the analysis and consideration of
additional provisions which are designed to mitigate impacts, the EPA
believes that it is highly unlikely that the rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The EPA believes that these measures adopted in the final rule will
significantly mitigate the economic impacts on small businesses that
might otherwise have occurred.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
[[Page 48876]]
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
Based upon the analysis presented in the EIA, the EPA has
determined that the action promulgated today does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, in any one year. Therefore, the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply
to this action. The EPA has likewise determined that the final rule
does not include regulatory requirements that would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's action is not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the
United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective September 11, 1998.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In the case of this rule, the proposed rule required the use of
Method 24 to determine VOC content of coatings. This method is a
compilation of existing voluntary consensus methods to determine the
volatile matter content, water content, and density of coatings. In
response to the proposed rule, the EPA received no comments pertaining
to the use of additional voluntary consensus standards rather than the
proposed Method 24, either during or after the comment period. In
preparing the final rule, however, the EPA has investigated to
determine the availability of any other existing voluntary consensus
standards for use in lieu of Method 24.
The EPA has searched for additional voluntary consensus standards
that might be applicable. The search included use of the National
Standards System Network, an automated service provided by the American
National Standards Institute for identifying available national and
international standards. The EPA has not identified any voluntary
consensus standards that are not presently included in Method 24 and
that would result in equivalent results. The EPA did identify another
voluntary consensus method (ASTM Method D 3960) that provides
instructions for calculating VOC content in many different units.
Because this other method does not specify which units to use, it may
result in inconsistent applications of the procedure and could make the
standard more difficult to enforce. Consequently, the EPA determined
that this other voluntary consensus method would be impractical to
adopt. In addition, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to use
Method 24 both because it has proven reliable and practical to achieve
the goals of reducing VOC and because the EPA wishes to foster
uniformity in testing nationwide. Accordingly, the EPA has determined
that Method 24 constitutes the appropriate method for determining
product compliance under this final rule.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines
(1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) for which the environmental health or safety risk addressed by
the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would
have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
provides to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
prior consultation and communications the agency has had with
representatives of tribal governments and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Information available to the Administrator does not indicate that this
action will have any effect on Indian tribal governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Architectural
coatings, Consumer and commercial products, Incorporation by reference,
Ozone, volatile organic compound.
Dated: August 14, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 59 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 59--NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 59 is amended by adding subpart D to read as follows:
[[Page 48877]]
Subpart D--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
Secs.
59.400 Applicability and compliance dates.
59.401 Definitions.
59.402 VOC content limits.
59.403 Exceedance fees.
59.404 Tonnage exemption.
59.405 Container labeling requirements.
59.406 Compliance provisions.
59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.
59.408 Reporting requirements.
59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.
59.410 State authority.
59.411 Circumvention.
59.412 Incorporations by reference.
59.413 Availability of information and confidentiality.
Appendix A to subpart D--Determination of Volatile Matter Content of
Methacrylate Multicomponent Coatings Used as Traffic Marking
Coatings
Table 1 to Subpart D--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits
for Architectural Coatings
Subpart D--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Architectural Coatings
Sec. 59.400 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the provisions of this subpart apply to each architectural coating
manufactured on or after September 13, 1999 for sale or distribution in
the United States.
(b) For any architectural coating registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et
seq.), the provisions of this subpart apply to any such coating
manufactured on or after March 13, 2000 for sale or distribution in the
United States.
(c) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to any
architectural coating described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of
this section:
(1) A coating that is manufactured for sale or distribution to
architectural coating markets outside the United States; such a coating
must not be sold or distributed within the United States as an
architectural coating.
(2) A coating that is manufactured prior to September 13, 1999.
(3) A coating that is sold in a nonrefillable aerosol container.
(4) A coating that is collected and redistributed at a paint
exchange.
(5) A coating that is sold in a container with a volume of one
liter or less.
Sec. 59.401 Definitions.
Act means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., as amended by
Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied for the
purpose of bonding two surfaces together other than by mechanical
means. Under this subpart, adhesives are not considered coatings.
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or an authorized
representative.
Antenna coating means a coating formulated and recommended for
application to equipment and associated structural appurtenances that
are used to receive or transmit electromagnetic signals.
Anti-fouling coating means a coating formulated and recommended for
application to submerged stationary structures and their appurtenances
to prevent or reduce the attachment of marine or freshwater biological
organisms, including, but not limited to, coatings registered with the
EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.) and nontoxic foul-release coatings.
Anti-graffiti coating means a clear or opaque high performance
coating formulated and recommended for application to interior and
exterior walls, doors, partitions, fences, signs, and murals to deter
adhesion of graffiti and to resist repeated scrubbing and exposure to
harsh solvents, cleansers, or scouring agents used to remove graffiti.
Appurtenance means any accessory to a stationary structure, whether
installed or detached at the proximate site of installation, including
but not limited to: bathroom and kitchen fixtures; cabinets; concrete
forms; doors; elevators; fences; hand railings; heating equipment, air
conditioning equipment, and other fixed mechanical equipment or
stationary tools; lamp posts; partitions; pipes and piping systems;
rain gutters and downspouts; stairways, fixed ladders, catwalks, and
fire escapes; and window screens.
Architectural coating means a coating recommended for field
application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to
portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. This definition excludes
adhesives and coatings recommended by the manufacturer or importer
solely for shop applications or solely for application to non-
stationary structures, such as airplanes, ships, boats, and railcars.
Below-ground wood preservative means a coating that is formulated
and recommended to protect below-ground wood from decay or insect
attack and that is registered with the EPA under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et
seq.).
Bituminous coating and mastic means a coating or mastic formulated
and recommended for roofing, pavement sealing, or waterproofing that
incorporates bitumens. Bitumens are black or brown materials including,
but not limited to, asphalt, tar, pitch, and asphaltite that are
soluble in carbon disulfide, consist mainly of hydrocarbons, and are
obtained from natural deposits of asphalt or as residues from the
distillation of crude petroleum or coal.
Bond breaker means a coating formulated and recommended for
application between layers of concrete to prevent a freshly poured top
layer of concrete from bonding to the layer over which it is poured.
Calcimine recoater means a flat solventborne coating formulated and
recommended specifically for recoating calcimine-painted ceilings and
other calcimine-painted substrates.
Chalkboard resurfacer means a coating formulated and recommended
for application to chalkboards to restore a suitable surface for
writing with chalk.
Clear means allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate
may be distinctly seen.
Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated into a
substrate for protective, decorative, or functional purposes. Such
materials include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants,
inks, maskants, and temporary coatings. Protective, decorative, or
functional materials that consist only of solvents, acids, bases, or
any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the
purposes of this subpart.
Colorant means a concentrated pigment dispersion of water, solvent,
and/or binder that is added to an architectural coating in a paint
store or at the site of application to produce the desired color.
Concrete curing compound means a coating formulated and recommended
for application to freshly placed concrete to retard the evaporation of
water.
Concrete curing and sealing compound means a liquid membrane-
forming compound marketed and sold solely for application to concrete
surfaces to reduce the loss of water during the hardening process and
to seal old and new concrete providing resistance against alkalis,
acids, and ultraviolet light, and provide adhesion promotion qualities.
The coating must meet the requirements of American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) C 1315-95, Standard
[[Page 48878]]
Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special
Properties for Curing and Sealing Concrete (incorporated by reference--
see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart).
Concrete protective coating means a high-build coating, formulated
and recommended, for application in a single coat over concrete,
plaster, or other cementitious surfaces. These coatings are formulated
to be primerless, one-coat systems that can be applied over form oils
and/or uncured concrete. These coatings prevent spalling of concrete in
freezing temperatures by providing long-term protection from water and
chloride ion intrusion.
Concrete surface retarder means a mixture of retarding ingredients
such as extender pigments, primary pigments, resin, and solvent that
interact chemically with the cement to prevent hardening on the surface
where the retarder is applied, allowing the retarded mix of cement and
sand at the surface to be washed away to create an exposed aggregate
finish.
Container means the individual receptacle that holds the coating
for storage and/or sale or distribution.
Conversion varnish means a clear acid curing coating with an alkyd
or other resin blended with amino resins and supplied as a single
component or two-component product. Conversion varnishes produce a
hard, durable, clear finish designed for professional application to
wood flooring. The film formation is the result of an acid-catalyzed
condensation reaction, affecting a transetherification at the reactive
ethers of the amino resins.
Dry fog coating means a coating formulated and recommended only for
spray application such that overspray droplets dry before subsequent
contact with incidental surfaces in the vicinity of the surface coating
activity.
Exempt compounds means specific organic compounds that are not
considered volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to negligible
photochemical reactivity. The exempt compounds are specified in 40 CFR
51.100.
Exterior coating means an architectural coating formulated and
recommended for use in conditions exposed to the weather.
Extreme high durability coating means an air dry coating, including
a fluoropolymer-based coating, that is formulated and recommended for
touchup of precoated architectural aluminum extrusions and panels and
to ensure the protection of architectural subsections, and that meets
the weathering requirements of American Architectural Manufacturer's
Association (AAMA) specification 605-98, Voluntary Specification
Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High Performance
Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions and Panels, Section 7.9
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart).
Faux-finishing/glazing means a coating used for wet-in-wet
techniques, such as faux woodgrain, faux marble, and simulated aging,
which require the finish to remain wet for an extended period of time.
Fire-retardant/resistive coating means a coating formulated and
recommended to retard ignition and flame spread, or to delay melting or
structural weakening due to high heat, that has been fire tested and
rated by a certified laboratory for use in bringing buildings and
construction materials into compliance with Federal, State, and local
building code requirements.
Flat coating means a coating that is not defined under any other
definition in this section and that registers gloss less than 15 on an
85-degree meter or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter according to ASTM
Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart).
Floor coating means an opaque coating with a high degree of
abrasion resistance that is formulated and recommended for application
to flooring including, but not limited to, decks, porches, and steps in
a residential setting.
Flow coating means a coating that is used by electric power
companies or their subcontractors to maintain the protective coating
systems present on utility transformer units.
Form release compound means a coating formulated and recommended
for application to a concrete form to prevent the freshly placed
concrete from bonding to the form. The form may consist of wood, metal,
or some material other than concrete.
Graphic arts coating or sign paint means a coating formulated and
recommended for hand-application by artists using brush or roller
techniques to indoor or outdoor signs (excluding structural components)
and murals including lettering enamels, poster colors, copy blockers,
and bulletin enamels.
Heat reactive coating means a high performance phenolic-based
coating requiring a minimum temperature of 191 deg.C (375 deg.F) to
204 deg.C (400 deg.F) to obtain complete polymerization or cure.
These coatings are formulated and recommended for commercial and
industrial use to protect substrates from degradation and maintain
product purity in which one or more of the following extreme conditions
exist:
(1) Continuous or repeated immersion exposure of 90 to 98 percent
sulfuric acid, or oleum;
(2) Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to strong organic
solvents;
(3) Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to petroleum
processing at high temperatures and pressures; and
(4) Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to food or
pharmaceutical products which may or may not require high temperature
sterilization.
High temperature coating means a high performance coating
formulated and recommended for application to substrates exposed
continuously or intermittently to temperatures above 202 deg.C
(400 deg.F).
Impacted immersion coating means a high performance maintenance
coating formulated and recommended for application to steel structures
subject to immersion in turbulent, debris-laden water. These coatings
are specifically resistant to high-energy impact damage caused by
floating ice or debris.
Imported means that a coating manufactured outside the United
States has been brought into the United States for sale or
distribution.
Importer means a person that brings architectural coatings into the
United States for sale or distribution within the United States. This
definition does not include any person that brings a coating into the
United States and repackages the coating by transferring it from one
container to another, provided the coating VOC content is not altered
and the coating is not sold or distributed to another party. For
purposes of applying this definition, divisions of a company,
subsidiaries, and parent companies are considered to be a single
importer.
Industrial maintenance coating means a high performance
architectural coating, including primers, sealers, undercoaters,
intermediate coats, and topcoats formulated and recommended for
application to substrates exposed to one or more of the following
extreme environmental conditions in an industrial, commercial, or
institutional setting:
(1) Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous
and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to
moisture condensation;
(2) Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic
agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or
solutions;
(3) Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 deg.C (250
deg.F);
(4) Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear
[[Page 48879]]
and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers,
or scouring agents; or
(5) Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural
components.
Interior clear wood sealer means a low viscosity coating formulated
and recommended for sealing and preparing porous wood by penetrating
the wood and creating a uniform smooth substrate for a finish coat of
paint or varnish.
Interior coating means an architectural coating formulated and
recommended for use in conditions not exposed to natural weathering.
Label means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to,
applied to, attached to, blown into, formed, molded into, embossed on,
or appearing upon any architectural coating container for purposes of
branding, identifying, or giving information with respect to the
product, use of the product, or contents of the container.
Lacquer means a clear or pigmented wood finish, including clear
lacquer sanding sealers, formulated with cellulosic or synthetic resins
to dry by evaporation without chemical reaction and to provide a solid,
protective film. Lacquer stains are considered stains, not lacquers.
Low solids means containing 0.12 kilogram or less of solids per
liter (1 pound or less of solids per gallon) of coating material and
for which at least half of the volatile component is water.
Magnesite cement coating means a coating formulated and recommended
for application to magnesite cement decking to protect the magnesite
cement substrate from erosion by water.
Manufactured means that coating ingredients have been combined and
put into containers that have been labeled and made available for sale
or distribution.
Manufacturer means a person that produces, packages, or repackages
architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States. A
person that repackages architectural coatings as part of a paint
exchange, and does not produce, package, or repackage any other
architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States,
is excluded from this definition. A person that repackages a coating by
transferring it from one container to another is excluded from this
definition, provided the coating VOC content is not altered and the
coating is not sold or distributed to another party. For purposes of
applying this definition, divisions of a company, subsidiaries, and
parent companies are considered to be a single manufacturer.
Mastic texture coating means a coating formulated and recommended
to cover holes and minor cracks and to conceal surface irregularities,
and is applied in a single coat of at least 10 mils (0.010 inch) dry
film thickness.
Metallic pigmented coating means a nonbituminous coating containing
at least 0.048 kilogram of metallic pigment per liter of coating (0.4
pound per gallon) including, but not limited to, zinc pigment.
Multi-colored coating means a coating that is packaged in a single
container and exhibits more than one color when applied.
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectant means a
clear coating formulated and recommended for application to ornamental
architectural metal substrates (bronze, stainless steel, copper, brass,
and anodized aluminum) to prevent oxidation, corrosion, and surface
degradation.
Nonflat coating means a coating that is not defined under any other
definition in this section and that registers a gloss of 15 or greater
on an 85-degree meter or 5 or greater on a 60-degree meter according to
ASTM Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart).
Nuclear coating means a protective coating formulated and
recommended to seal porous surfaces such as steel (or concrete) that
otherwise would be subject to intrusion by radioactive materials. These
coatings must be resistant to long-term (service life) cumulative
radiation exposure (ASTM Method D 4082-89, Standard Test Method for
Effects of Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear
Power Plants (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this
subpart)), relatively easy to decontaminate, and resistant to various
chemicals to which the coatings are likely to be exposed (ASTM Method D
3912-80 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Method for Chemical Resistance
of Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart)).
Opaque means not allowing light to pass through, so that the
substrate is concealed from view.
Paint exchange means a program in which consumers, excluding
architectural coating manufacturers and importers, may drop off and
pick up usable post-consumer architectural coatings in order to reduce
hazardous waste.
Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association,
State municipality, political subdivision of a State, and any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the United States and any officer,
agent, or employee thereof.
Pigmented means containing finely ground insoluble powder used to
provide one or more of the following properties: color; corrosion
inhibition; conductivity; fouling resistance; opacity; or improved
mechanical properties.
Post-consumer coating means an architectural coating that has
previously been purchased by a consumer or distributed to a consumer
but not applied, and reenters the marketplace to be purchased by or
distributed to a consumer. Post-consumer coatings include, but are not
limited to, coatings collected during hazardous waste collection
programs for repackaging or blending with virgin coating materials.
Pretreatment wash primer means a primer that contains a minimum of
0.5 percent acid, by weight, that is formulated and recommended for
application directly to bare metal surfaces in thin films to provide
corrosion resistance and to promote adhesion of subsequent topcoats.
Primer means a coating formulated and recommended for application
to a substrate to provide a firm bond between the substrate and
subsequent coatings.
Quick-dry enamel means a nonflat coating that has the following
characteristics:
(1) Is capable of being applied directly from the container under
normal conditions with ambient temperatures between 16 and 27 deg.C (60
and 80 deg.F);
(2) When tested in accordance with ASTM Method D 1640-83
(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film
Formation of Organic Coatings at Room Temperature (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 59.412), sets to touch in 2 hours or less, is tack
free in 4 hours or less, and dries hard in 8 hours or less by the
mechanical test method; and
(3) Has a dried film gloss of 70 or above on a 60 degree meter.
Quick-dry primer, sealer, and undercoater means a primer, sealer,
or undercoater that is dry to the touch in a \1/2\ hour and can be
recoated in 2 hours when tested in accordance with ASTM Method D 1640-
83 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film
Formation of Organic Coatings at Room Temperature (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 59.412 of this subpart).
Recycled coating means an architectural coating that contains some
portion of post-consumer coating. Recycled architectural coatings
include, but are not limited to, post-consumer
[[Page 48880]]
coatings that have been repackaged or blended with virgin coating
materials.
Repackage means to transfer an architectural coating from one
container to another.
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coating means an industrial
maintenance coating that has vinyl or chlorinated rubber as a primary
resin and is recommended solely for the repair of existing vinyl or
chlorinated rubber coatings without the full removal of the existing
coating system.
Roof coating means a coating formulated and recommended for
application to exterior roofs for the primary purpose of preventing
penetration of the substrate by water or reflecting heat and reflecting
ultraviolet radiation. This does not include thermoplastic rubber
coatings.
Rust preventative coating means a coating formulated and
recommended for use in preventing the corrosion of ferrous metal
surfaces in residential situations.
Sanding sealer means a clear wood coating formulated and
recommended for application to bare wood to seal the wood and to
provide a coat that can be sanded to create a smooth surface. A sanding
sealer that also meets the definition of a lacquer is not included in
this category, but is included in the lacquer category.
Sealer means a coating formulated and recommended for application
to a substrate for one or more of the following purposes: to prevent
subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate; to prevent
harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate; to block
stains, odors, or efflorescence; to seal fire, smoke, or water damage;
or to condition chalky surfaces.
Semitransparent means not completely concealing the surface of a
substrate or its natural texture or grain pattern.
Shellac means a clear or pigmented coating formulated with natural
resins (except nitrocellulose resins) soluble in alcohol (including,
but not limited to, the resinous secretions of the lac beetle, Laciffer
lacca). Shellacs dry by evaporation without chemical reaction and
provide a quick-drying, solid protective film that may be used for
blocking stains.
Shop application means that a coating is applied to a product or a
component of a product in a factory, shop, or other structure as part
of a manufacturing, production, or repairing process (e.g., original
equipment manufacturing coatings).
Stain means a coating that produces a dry film with minimal
coloring. This includes lacquer stains.
Stain controller means a conditioner or pretreatment coating
formulated and recommended for application to wood prior to the
application of a stain in order to prevent uneven penetration of the
stain.
Swimming pool coating means a coating formulated and recommended to
coat the interior of swimming pools and to resist swimming pool
chemicals.
Thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic means a coating or mastic
formulated and recommended for application to roofing or other
structural surfaces and that incorporates no less than 40 percent by
weight of thermoplastic rubbers in the total resin solids and may also
contain other ingredients including, but not limited to, fillers,
pigments, and modifying resins.
Tint base means a coating to which colorant is added in a paint
store or at the site of application to produce a desired color.
Traffic marking coating means a coating formulated and recommended
for marking and striping streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces
including, but not limited to, curbs, berms, driveways, parking lots,
sidewalks, and airport runways.
Undercoater means a coating formulated and recommended to provide a
smooth surface for subsequent coatings.
United States means the United States of America, including the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Varnish means a clear or semi-transparent coating, excluding
lacquers and shellacs, formulated and recommended to provide a durable,
solid, protective film. Varnishes may contain small amounts of pigment
to color a surface, or to control the final sheen or gloss of the
finish.
Volatile organic compound or VOC means any organic compound that
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions, that is, any
organic compound other than those which the Administrator designates as
having negligible photochemical reactivity. For a list of compounds
that the Administrator has designated as having negligible
photochemical reactivity, also referred to as exempt compounds, refer
to 40 CFR 51.100(s).
VOC content means the weight of VOC per volume of coating,
calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 59.406(a) of this
subpart.
Waterproofing sealer and treatment means a coating formulated and
recommended for application to a porous substrate for the primary
purpose of preventing the penetration of water.
Wood preservative means a coating formulated and recommended to
protect exposed wood from decay or insect attack, registered with the
EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.).
Zone marking coating means a coating formulated and recommended for
marking and striping driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, or
airport runways, and sold or distributed in a container with a volume
of 19 liters (5 gallons) or less.
Sec. 59.402 VOC Content limits.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating
subject to this subpart shall ensure that the VOC content of the
coating does not exceed the applicable limit in table 1 of this
subpart, except as provided in Secs. 59.403 and 59.404 of this subpart.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if
anywhere on the container of any architectural coating, or any label or
sticker affixed to the container, or in any sales, advertising, or
technical literature supplied by a manufacturer or importer or anyone
acting on their behalf, any representation is made that indicates that
the coating meets the definition of more than one of the coating
categories listed in table 1 of this subpart, then the most restrictive
VOC content limit shall apply.
(c) The provision in paragraph (b) of this section does not apply
to the coatings described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this
section.
(1) High temperature coatings that are also recommended for use as
metallic pigmented coatings are subject only to the VOC content limit
in table 1 of this subpart for high temperature coatings.
(2) Lacquer coatings (including lacquer sanding sealers) that are
also recommended for use in other architectural coating applications to
wood, except as stains, are subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for lacquers.
(3) Metallic pigmented coatings that are also recommended for use
as roof coatings, industrial maintenance coatings, or primers are
subject only to the VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart for
metallic pigmented coatings.
(4) Shellacs that are also recommended for use as any other
[[Page 48881]]
architectural coating are subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for shellacs.
(5) Fire-retardant/resistive coatings that are also recommended for
use as any other architectural coating are subject only to the VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart for fire-retardant/resistive
coatings.
(6) Pretreatment wash primers that are also recommended for use as
primers or that meet the definition for industrial maintenance coatings
are subject only to the VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart
for pretreatment wash primers.
(7) Industrial maintenance coatings that are also recommended for
use as primers, sealers, undercoaters, or mastic texture coatings are
subject only to the VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart for
industrial maintenance coatings.
(8) Varnishes and conversion varnishes that are recommended for use
as floor coatings are subject only to the VOC content limit in table 1
of this subpart for varnishes and conversion varnishes, respectively.
(9) Anti-graffiti coatings, high temperature coatings, impacted
immersion coatings, thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics, repair
and maintenance thermoplastic coatings, and flow coatings that also
meet the definition for industrial maintenance coatings are subject
only to the VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart for their
respective categories (i.e., they are not subject to the industrial
maintenance coatings VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart).
(10) Waterproofing sealers and treatments that also meet the
definition for quick-dry sealers are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for waterproofing sealers and
treatments.
(11) Sanding sealers that also meet the definition for quick-dry
sealers are subject only to the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for sanding sealers.
(12) Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants
that also meet the definition for lacquers are subject only to the VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart for nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and surface protectants.
(13) Quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters that also meet
the definition for primers and undercoaters are subject only to the VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart for quick-dry primers,
sealers, and undercoaters.
(14) Antenna coatings that also meet the definition for industrial
maintenance coatings or primers are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for antenna coatings.
(15) Bituminous coatings and mastics that are recommended for use
as any other architectural coatings are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for bituminous coatings and mastics.
Sec. 59.403 Exceedance fees.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.404 of this subpart, each
manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart may exceed the applicable VOC content limit
in table 1 of this subpart for the coating if the manufacturer or
importer pays an annual exceedance fee. The exceedance fee must be
calculated using the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
(b) The exceedance fee paid by a manufacturer or importer, which is
equal to the sum of the applicable exceedance fees for all coatings,
must be calculated using equation 1 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.014
Where:
Annual Exceedance Fee=The total annual exceedance fee for a
manufacturer or importer, in dollars.
Coating Feec=The annual exceedance fee for each coating (c),
for which a fee applies, in dollars.
n=number of coatings to which a fee applies.
(c) The exceedance fee to be paid for each coating must be
determined using equation 2 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.015
Where:
Fee Rate = The rate of $0.0028 per gram of excess VOC.
Excess VOC = The VOC content of the coating, or adjusted VOC content of
a recycled coating (if applicable), in grams of VOC per liter of
coating, minus the applicable VOC content limit from table 1 of this
subpart (that is, VOC content of the coating minus VOC content limit).
Volume Manufactured or Imported = The volume of the coating
manufactured or imported per year, in liters, excluding any volume for
which a tonnage exemption is claimed under Sec. 59.404 of this subpart.
(d) The exceedance fee shall be paid no later than 2 months after
the end of the calendar year in which the coatings are manufactured or
imported, and shall be sent to the Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, as listed in Sec. 59.409 of this
subpart, that serves the State or Territory in which the corporate
headquarters of the manufacturer or importer is located.
Sec. 59.404 Tonnage exemption.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart may designate a limited
quantity of coatings to be exempt from the VOC content limits in table
1 of this subpart and the exceedance fee provisions of Sec. 59.403 of
this subpart, provided all of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section are met.
(1) The total amount of VOC contained in all the coatings selected
for exemption must be equal to or less than 23 megagrams (25 tons) for
the period of time from September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000;
18 megagrams (20 tons) in the year 2001; and 9 megagams (10 tons) per
year in the year 2002 and each subsequent year. The amount of VOC
contained in each coating shall be calculated using the procedure in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The container labeling requirements of Sec. 59.405 of this
subpart.
(3) The recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 59.407(c) of this
subpart.
(4) The reporting requirements of Sec. 59.408(b), (e), and (f) of
this subpart.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer choosing to use the exemption
[[Page 48882]]
described in paragraph (a) of this section must use equations 3 and 4
to calculate the total amount of VOC for each time period the exemption
is elected.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.016
Where:
Total VOC = Total megagrams of VOC contained in all coatings being
claimed under the exemption.
VOCc = The amount of VOC, in megagrams, for each coating (c)
claimed under the exemption, as computed by equation 4.
n = Number of coatings for which exemption is claimed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.017
Where:
Volume Manufactured or Imported = Volume of the coating manufactured or
imported, in liters, for the time period the exemption is claimed.
VOC Content = VOC content of the coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation, including
the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint
bases.
Sec. 59.405 Container labeling requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall provide the information
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section on the
coating container in which the coating is sold or distributed.
(1) The date the coating was manufactured, or a date code
representing the date shall be indicated on the label, lid, or bottom
of the container.
(2) A statement of the manufacturer's recommendation regarding
thinning of the coating shall be indicated on the label or lid of the
container. This requirement does not apply to the thinning of
architectural coatings with water. If thinning of the coating prior to
use is not necessary, the recommendation must specify that the coating
is to be applied without thinning.
(3) The VOC content of the coating as described in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section shall be indicated on the label
or lid of the container.
(i) The VOC content of the coating, displayed in units of grams of
VOC per liter of coating; or
(ii) The VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart with which
the coating is required to comply and does comply, displayed in units
of grams of VOC per liter of coating.
(b) In addition to the information specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, each manufacturer and importer of any industrial
maintenance coating subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
display on the label or lid of the container in which the coating is
sold or distributed one or more of the descriptions listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) ``For industrial use only.''
(2) ``For professional use only.''
(3) ``Not for residential use'' or ``Not intended for residential
use.''
(4) ``This coating is intended for use under the following
condition(s):'' (Include each condition in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(b)(4)(v) of this section that applies to the coating.)
(i) Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous
and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to
moisture condensation;
(ii) Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic
agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or
solutions;
(iii) Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 deg. C (250 deg.
F);
(iv) Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear
and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers,
or scouring agents; or
(v) Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural
components.
(c) In addition to the information specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, each manufacturer and importer of any recycled coating
who calculates the VOC content using equations 7 and 8 in
Sec. 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart shall include the following statement
indicating the post-consumer coating content on the label or lid of the
container in which the coating is sold or distributed: ``CONTAINS NOT
LESS THAN X PERCENT BY VOLUME POST-CONSUMER COATING,'' where ``X'' is
replaced by the percent by volume of post-consumer architectural
coating.
Sec. 59.406 Compliance provisions.
(a) For the purpose of determining compliance with the VOC content
limits in table 1 of this subpart, each manufacturer and importer shall
determine the VOC content of a coating using the procedures described
in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, as appropriate.
The VOC content of a tint base shall be determined without colorant
that is added after the tint base is manufactured or imported.
(1) With the exception of low solids stains and low solids wood
preservatives, determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of
coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation, excluding
the volume of any water and exempt compounds. Calculate the VOC content
using equation 5 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.018
Where:
VOC content = grams of VOC per liter of coating
Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams
Ww = weight of water, in grams
Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in grams
Vm = volume of coating, in liters
Vw = volume of water, in liters
Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in liters
(2) For low solids stains and low solids wood preservatives,
determine the VOC content in units of grams of VOC per liter of coating
thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation, including the
volume of any water and exempt compounds. Calculate the VOC content
using equation 6 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.019
Where:
VOC content 1s = the VOC content of a low solids coating in
grams of VOC per liter of coating
Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams
Ww = weight of water, in grams
Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in grams
Vm = volume of coating, in liters
(3) For recycled coatings, the manufacturer or importer has the
option of calculating an adjusted VOC content to account for the post-
consumer
[[Page 48883]]
coating content. If this option is used, the manufacturer or importer
shall determine the adjusted VOC content using equations 7 and 8 as
follows:
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.020
Adjusted VOC content = The VOC content assigned to the recycled coating
for purposes of complying with the VOC content limits in table 1 of
this subpart.
Actual VOC content = The VOC content of the coating as determined using
equation 5 in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Percent Post-consumer Coating = The volume percent of a recycled
coating that is post-consumer coating materials (as determined in
equation 8)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.021
Where:
Percent Post-consumer Coating = The volume percent of a recycled
coating that is post-consumer coating materials.
Volume of Post-consumer Coating = The volume, in liters, of post-
consumer coating materials used in the production of a recycled
coating.
Volume of Virgin Materials = The volume, in liters, of virgin coating
materials used in the production of a recycled coating.
(b) To determine the composition of a coating in order to perform
the calculations in paragraph (a) of this section, the reference method
for VOC content is Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, except as
provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. To determine the
VOC content of a coating, the manufacturer or importer may use Method
24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, an alternative method as provided
in paragraph (c) of this section, formulation data, or any other
reasonable means for predicting that the coating has been formulated as
intended (e.g., quality assurance checks, recordkeeping). However, if
there are any inconsistencies between the results of a Method 24 test
and any other means for determining VOC content, the Method 24 test
results will govern, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section. The Administrator may require the manufacturer or importer to
conduct a Method 24 analysis.
(c) The Administrator may approve, on a case-by-case basis, a
manufacturer's or importer's use of an alternative method in lieu of
Method 24 for determining the VOC content of coatings if the
alternative method is demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction
to provide results that are acceptable for purposes of determining
compliance with this subpart.
(d) Analysis of methacrylate multicomponent coatings used as
traffic marking coatings shall be conducted according to the procedures
specified in appendix A to this subpart. Appendix A to this subpart is
a modification of Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The
modification of Method 24 provided in appendix A to this subpart has
not been approved for methacrylate multicomponent coatings used for
other purposes than as traffic marking coatings or for other classes of
multicomponent coatings.
(e) The Administrator may determine a manufacturer's or importer's
compliance with the provisions of this subpart based on information
required by this subpart (including the records and reports required by
Secs. 59.407 and 59.408 of this subpart) or any other information
available to the Administrator.
Sec. 59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer using the provisions of
Sec. 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart to determine the VOC content of a
recycled coating shall maintain in written or electronic form records
of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of
this section for a period of 3 years.
(1) The minimum volume percent post-consumer coating content for
each recycled coating.
(2) The volume of post-consumer coating received for recycling.
(3) The volume of post-consumer coating received that was unusable.
(4) The volume of virgin materials.
(5) The volume of the final recycled coating manufactured or
imported.
(6) Calculations of the adjusted VOC content as determined using
equation 7 in Sec. 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart for each recycled
coating.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer using the exceedance fee
provisions in Sec. 59.403 of this subpart, as an alternative to
achieving the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart, shall
maintain in written or electronic form the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section for a period of 3
years.
(1) A list of the coatings and the associated coating categories in
table 1 of this subpart for which the exceedance fee is used.
(2) Calculations of the annual fee for each coating and the total
annual fee for all coatings using the procedure in Sec. 59.403 (b) and
(c) of this subpart.
(3) The VOC content of each coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating.
(4) The excess VOC content of each coating in grams of VOC per
liter of coating.
(5) The total volume of each coating manufactured or imported per
calendar year in liters of coating, excluding the volume of any water
and exempt compounds.
(6) The annual fee for each coating.
(7) The total annual fee for all coatings.
(c) Each manufacturer and importer claiming the tonnage exemption
in Sec. 59.404 of this subpart shall maintain in written or electronic
form the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
section for a period of 3 years.
(1) A list of all coatings and associated coating categories in
table 1 of this subpart for which the exemption is claimed.
(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC per liter of coating,
including water, of each coating for which the exemption is claimed.
(3) The planned and actual sales, in liters, for each coating for
which the exemption is claimed for the time period the exemption is
claimed.
(4) The total megagrams of VOC contained in each coating for which
the
[[Page 48884]]
exemption is claimed, and for all coatings combined for which the
exemption is claimed, for the time period the exemption is claimed, as
calculated in Sec. 59.404(b) of this subpart.
Sec. 59.408 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit reports and
exceedance fees specified in this section to the appropriate address as
listed in Sec. 59.409 of this subpart.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit an initial
notification report no later than September 13, 1999 or within 180 days
after the date that the first architectural coating is manufactured or
imported, whichever is later. The initial report must include the
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) The name and mailing address of the manufacturer or importer.
(2) The street address of each one of the manufacturer's or
importer's facilities in the United States that is producing,
packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(3) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which
the manufacturer's or importer's coatings meet the definitions in
Sec. 59.401 of this subpart.
(4) If a date code is used on a coating container to represent the
date a coating was manufactured, as allowed in Sec. 59.405(a)(1) of
this subpart, the manufacturer or importer of the coating shall include
an explanation of each date code in the initial notification report and
shall submit an explanation of any new date code no later than 30 days
after the new date code is first used on the container for a coating.
(c) Each manufacturer and importer of a recycled coating that
chooses to determine the adjusted VOC content according to the
provisions of Sec. 59.406(a)(3) to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable VOC content limit in table 1 of this subpart shall submit a
report containing the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5)
of this section. The report must be submitted for each coating for
which the adjusted VOC content is used to demonstrate compliance. This
report must be submitted by March 1 of the year following any calendar
year in which the adjusted VOC content provision is used.
(1) The minimum volume percent post-consumer coating content for
each recycled coating.
(2) The volume of post-consumer coating received for recycling.
(3) The volume of post-consumer coating received that was unusable.
(4) The volume of virgin materials used.
(5) The volume of the final recycled coating manufactured or
imported.
(d) Each manufacturer and importer that uses the exceedance fee
provisions of Sec. 59.403 of this subpart shall report the information
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(7) of this section for each coating
for which the exceedance fee provisions are used. This report and the
exceedance fee payment must be submitted by March 1 following the
calendar year in which the coating is manufactured or imported.
(1) Manufacturer's or importer's name and mailing address.
(2) A list of all coatings and the associated coating categories in
table 1 of this subpart for which the exceedance fee provision is being
used.
(3) The VOC content of each coating that exceeds the applicable VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart.
(4) The excess VOC content of each coating in grams of VOC per
liter of coating.
(5) The total volume of each coating manufactured or imported per
calendar year, in liters.
(6) The annual fee for each coating.
(7) The total annual fee for all coatings.
(e) Each manufacturer and importer of architectural coatings for
which a tonnage exemption under Sec. 59.404 of this subpart is claimed
shall submit a report no later than March 1 of the year following the
calendar year in which the exemption was claimed. The report must
include the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this
section.
(1) A list of all coatings and the associated coating categories in
table 1 of this subpart for which the exemption was claimed.
(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC per liter of coating,
including water, of each coating for which the exemption was claimed.
(3) The actual sales, in liters, for each coating for which the
exemption was claimed for the time period the exemption was claimed.
(4) The total megagrams of VOC contained in all coatings for which
the exemption was claimed for the time period the exemption was
claimed, as calculated in Sec. 59.404(b) of this subpart.
Sec. 59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.
Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall submit all requests, reports,
submittals, exceedance fee payments, and other communications to the
Administrator pursuant to this regulation to the Regional Office of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that serves the State or Territory
in which the corporate headquarters of the manufacturer or importer
resides. These areas are indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices:
EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Office of Environmental
Stewardship, Mailcode: SAA, J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston, MA
02203-2211.
EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands),
Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), Director, Air Protection
Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air,
Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, GA 30303.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas),
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air,
RCRA, and Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming), Director, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii,
Nevada), Director, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105.
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Office
of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Sec. 59.410 State authority.
The provisions of this subpart must not be construed in any manner
to preclude any State or political subdivision thereof from:
(a) Adopting and enforcing any emissions standard or limitation
applicable to a manufacturer or importer of architectural coatings; or
(b) Requiring the manufacturer or importer of architectural
coatings to obtain permits, licenses, or approvals prior to initiating
construction,
[[Page 48885]]
modification, or operation of a facility for manufacturing an
architectural coating.
Sec. 59.411 Circumvention.
Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject
to the provisions of this subpart must not alter, destroy, or falsify
any record or report, to conceal what would otherwise be noncompliance
with this subpart. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to,
refusing to provide the Administrator access to all required records
and date-coding information, altering the VOC content of a coating
batch, or altering the results of any required tests to determine VOC
content.
Sec. 59.412 Incorporations by reference.
(a) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by
reference in the paragraphs noted in Sec. 59.401. These incorporations
by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are
incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of
any changes in these materials will be published in the Federal
Register. The materials are available for purchase at the corresponding
addresses noted below, and all are available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
700, Washington, DC; at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and at the
EPA Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
(b) The materials listed below are available for purchase at the
following address: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
(1) ASTM Method C 1315-95, Standard Specification for Liquid
Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and
Sealing Concrete, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401,
Concrete curing and sealing compound.
(2) ASTM Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss,
incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401, Flat coating and
Nonflat coating.
(3) ASTM Method D 1640-83 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Methods
for Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at Room
Temperature, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401,
Quick-dry enamel and Quick-dry primer, sealer, and undercoater.
(4) ASTM Method D 3912-80 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Method
for Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power
Plants, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401, Nuclear
coating.
(5) ASTM Method D 4082-89, Standard Test Method for Effects of
Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear Power
Plants, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401, Nuclear
coating.
(c) The following material is available from the AAMA, 1827 Walden
Office Square, Suite 104, Schaumburg, IL 60173.
(1) AAMA 605-98, Voluntary Specification Requirements and Test
Procedures for High Performance Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions
and Panels, incorporation by reference approved for Sec. 59.401,
Extreme high durability coating.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 59.413 Availability of information and confidentiality.
(a) Availability of information. The availability to the public of
information provided to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator
under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
(b) Confidentiality. All confidential business information entitled
to protection under section 114(c) of the Act that must be submitted or
maintained by each manufacturer or importer of architectural coatings
pursuant to this section shall be treated in accordance with 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B.
Appendix A to Subpart D--Determination of Volatile Matter Content
of Methacrylate Multicomponent Coatings Used as Traffic Marking
Coatings
1.0 Principle and Applicability
1.1 Applicability. This modification to Method 24 of appendix A
of 40 CFR part 60 applies to the determination of volatile matter
content of methacrylate multicomponent coatings used as traffic
marking coatings.
1.2 Principle. A known amount of methacrylate multicomponent
coating is dispersed in a weighing dish using a stirring device
before the volatile matter is removed by heating in an oven.
2.0 Procedure
2.1 Prepare about 100 milliliters (mL) of sample by mixing the
components in a storage container, such as a glass jar with a screw
top or a metal can with a cap. The storage container should be just
large enough to hold the mixture. Combine the components (by weight
or volume) in the ratio recommended by the manufacturer. Tightly
close the container between additions and during mixing to prevent
loss of volatile materials. Most manufacturers' mixing instructions
are by volume. Because of possible error caused by expansion of the
liquid when measuring the volume, it is recommended that the
components be combined by weight. When weight is used to combine the
components and the manufacturer's recommended ratio is by volume,
the density must be determined by section 3.5 of Method 24 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
2.2 Immediately after mixing, take aliquots from this 100 mL
sample for determination of the total volatile content, water
content, and density. To determine water content, follow section 3.4
of Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. To determine density,
follow section 3.5 of Method 24. To determine total volatile
content, use the apparatus and reagents described in section 3.8.2
of Method 24 and the following procedures:
2.2.1 Weigh and record the weight of an aluminum foil weighing
dish and a metal paper clip. Using a syringe as specified in section
3.8.2.1 of Method 24, weigh to 1 milligrams (mg), by difference, a
sample of coating into the weighing dish. For methacrylate
multicomponent coatings used for traffic marking use 3.0
0.1 g.
2.2.2 Add the specimen and use the metal paper clip to disperse
the specimen over the surface of the weighing dish. If the material
forms a lump that cannot be dispersed, discard the specimen and
prepare a new one. Similarly, prepare a duplicate. The sample shall
stand for a minimum of 1 hour, but no more than 24 hours before
being oven dried at 110 5 degrees Celsius for 1 hour.
2.2.3 Heat the aluminum foil dishes containing the dispersed
specimens in the forced draft oven for 60 minutes at 110
5 degrees Celsius. Caution--provide adequate
ventilation, consistent with accepted laboratory practice, to
prevent solvent vapors from accumulating to a dangerous level.
2.2.4 Remove the dishes from the oven, place immediately in a
desiccator, cool to ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1 mg.
After weighing, break up the film of the coating using the metal
paper clip. Weigh dish to within 1 mg. Return to forced draft oven
for an additional 60 minutes at 110 5 degrees Celsius.
2.2.5 Remove the dishes from the oven, place immediately in a
desiccator, cool to ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1 mg.
2.2.6 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets for each coating
mixture until the criterion in section 4.3 of Method 24 of appendix
A of 40 CFR part 60 is met. Calculate the weight of volatile matter
for each heating period following Equation 24-2 of Method 24 and
record the arithmetic average. Add the arithmetic average for the
two heating periods to obtain the weight fraction of the volatile
matter.
3.0 Data Validation Procedure
3.1 Follow the procedures in Section 4 of Method 24 of appendix
A to 40 CFR part 60.
3.2 If more than 10 percent of the sample is lost when the
sample is being broken up in 2.2.4, the sample is invalid.
[[Page 48886]]
4.0 Calculations
Follow the calculation procedures in Section 5 of Method 24 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
Table 1 To Subpart D.--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), Content Limits
for Architectural Coatings
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per
liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added
to tint bases.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grams VOC per Pounds VOC per
Coating category liter gallon a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna coatings........................ 530 4.4
Anti-fouling coatings................... 450 3.3
Anti-graffiti coatings.................. 600 5.0
Bituminous coatings and mastics......... 500 4.2
Bond breakers........................... 600 5.0
Calcimine recoater...................... 475 4.0
Chalkboard resurfacers.................. 450 3.8
Concrete curing compounds............... 350 2.9
Concrete curing and sealing compounds... 700 5.8
Concrete protective coatings............ 400 3.3
Concrete surface retarders.............. 780 6.5
Conversion varnish...................... 725 6.0
Dry fog coatings........................ 400 3.3
Extreme high durability coatings........ 800 6.7
Faux finishing/glazing.................. 700 5.8
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:
Clear............................... 850 7.1
Opaque.............................. 450 3.8
Flat coatings:
Exterior coatings................... 250 2.1
Interior coatings................... 250 2.1
Floor coatings.......................... 400 3.3
Flow coatings........................... 650 5.4
Form release compounds.................. 450 3.8
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints)..... 500 4.2
Heat reactive coatings.................. 420 3.5
High temperature coatings............... 650 5.4
Impacted immersion coatings............. 780 6.5
Industrial maintenance coatings......... 450 3.8
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding
sealers)............................... 680 5.7
Magnesite cement coatings............... 600 5.0
Mastic texture coatings................. 300 2.5
Metallic pigmented coatings............. 500 4.2
Multi-colored coatings.................. 580 4.8
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and
surface protectants.................... 870 7.3
Nonflat coatings:
Exterior coatings................... 380 3.2
Interior coatings................... 380 3.2
Nuclear coatings........................ 450 3.8
Pretreatment wash primers............... 780 6.5
Primers and undercoaters................ 350 2.9
Quick-dry coatings:
Enamels............................. 450 3.8
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters.. 450 3.8
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic
coatings............................... 650 5.4
Roof coatings........................... 250 2.1
Rust preventative coatings.............. 400 3.3
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer
sanding sealers)....................... 550 4.6
Sealers (including interior clear wood
sealers)............................... 400 3.3
Shellacs:
Clear............................... 730 6.1
Opaque.............................. 550 4.6
Stains:
Clear and semitransparent........... 550 4.6
Opaque 350 2.9
Low solids b 120 b 1.0
Stain controllers....................... 720 6.0
Swimming pool coatings.................. 600 5.0
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and
mastics................................ 550 4.6
Traffic marking coatings................ 150 1.3
Varnishes............................... 450 3.8
Waterproofing sealers and treatments.... 600 5.0
Wood preservatives:
Below ground wood preservatives..... 550 4.6
[[Page 48887]]
Clear and semitransparent........... 550 4.6
Opaque.............................. 350 2.9
Low solids.......................... b 120 b 1.0
Zone marking coatings................... 450 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a English units are provided for information only. Compliance will be
determined based on the VOC content limit, as expressed in metric
units.
b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of
coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum
thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
[FR Doc. 98-22659 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p
